.. : 

1 - 





LETTERS 



TO THE 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, 



CONCERNING 



UNSCRIPTURAL SPECULATIONS IN THEOLOGY. 



By LEVI NELSON, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHURCH IN LISBON, CONN 



Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col. 2 : 8. 



HARTFORD: 

PRESS OF CASE, TIFFANY AND COMPANY. 
1851. 



33<?)k 



r* 






LETTERS TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, 



CONCERNING 



UNSCFJPTURAL SPECULATIONS IN THEOLOGY. 



LETTER I. 

JUDE, 3. — "Beloved, when i gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, 

IT WAS NEEDFUL FOR ME TO WRITE UNTO YOU, AND EXHORT YOU, THAT YE SHOULD EARNESTLY 
CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS." 

Peace is always desirable, if it be the right kind ; and if it be obtained 
and preserved in a right manner. Such is what the apostle calls, " the 
peace of God," which is the effect of a new heart; and this is the only- 
kind of peace to be much depended on, in this depraved world. 

A warfare of the spiritual kind has been carried on in the universe, 
ever since some of the angels rebelled in heaven. As soon as Satan 
enticed our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit, it could be said 
in a more extraordinary sense than in the time of Job, '* The earth is 
given into the hand of the wicked." When the curse was denounced 
against the serpent, and Jehovah declared, that the seed of the woman 
should bruise his head, a war was proclaimed in this world, which has 
raged ever since ; and it will continue to rage, in some form, till the 
head of the serpent shall be effectually bruised. It is a war between 
holiness and sin — between truth and error. Christ is the leader on the 
side of truth and holiness. He has set up his righteous kingdom in the 
world in opposition to the kingdom of Satan, and he is known as the 
" Prince of Peace." This title is most appropriate, inasmuch as noth- 
ing short of truth and holiness can lay the foundation for perfect peace. 
As there is no pure, holy peace, for any individual, till he is born of 
God, so there is no pure, holy peace in any kingdom but that which 
Christ has set up in the world. 



4 LETTERS TO THE 

It is important, however, to consider, that though Christ's kingdom is 
emphatically the kingdom of peace, yet as its holy principles come in 
contact with sin and error, its effect, till it subdues whatever opposes it, 
is not peace. It is necessary to bear this thought in mind in order 
rightly to understand the scriptures on this subject. Thus when our 
Saviour stated to Pilate the nature of his kingdom, (John 18 ; 36,) he said, 
" My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, 
then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews ; 
but now is my kingdom not from hence." In like manner, Paul said, 
(Rom. 14 ; 17,) " For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and 
joy in the Holy Ghost." Accordingly the uniform representation in the 
scriptures of the prosperity of Christ's kingdom is that of great peace. 
Yet it is well known, that the Prince of Peace himself has given notice 
to the world, (Math. 10 ; 34-36,) " Think not I am come to send peace 
on earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to 
set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her 
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a 
man's foes shall be they of his own household." Such are the first ef- 
fects of the setting up of this kingdom of truth and righteousness, wholly 
on account of the depravity of man. His heart is opposed to the holy 
terms which are presented. Holiness is not to be blamed, nor is the 
Author of holiness to be blamed, for this warfare. The blame must for_ 
ever rest on those who are unreconciled to truth and holiness. Here the 
desperate wickedness of the human heart shows itself. When the holy 
principles of the Saviour's kingdom come in contact with it, the fire is 
kindled. (See Luke 12; 49.) In accordance with this, we see why 
the Lord honored Phinehas (Num. 25,) by establishing a covenant of 
peace with him, after he showed such decision. Indeed the Lord hon- 
ored him with an everlasting priesthood, in which he was a remarkable 
type of Christ, on account of his fidelity in endeavoring to establish peace 
on its proper basis, though it was at the expense of the lives of those 
who had been the wicked cause of the disturbance. 

Since, then, on account of the wickedness of men, there are great and 
long continued contests in setting up the kingdom of peace on earth, we 
see why the scriptures so often make use of the language of human war- 
fare, on this subject. Thus Christ is called the Captain of salvation. 
(Heb. 2 ; 10.) He is represented (Rev. 6 ; 2,) on a white horse with 
his bow, and going forth "conquering and to conquer." When Paul 
would show the importance of entire devotedness to Christ in the minis- 
ters of the gospel, he says, " No man that warreth entangleth himself 
with the affairs of this life ; that he may please him who hath chosen 
him to be a soldier. (2 Tim. 2; 4.) Paul, speaking of himself and 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. O 

his brethren, (2 Cor. 10: 4,) says, "The weapons of our warfare are 
not carnal." In exhorting his Ephesian brethren (6th chapter) to " be 
strong in the Lord and in the power of his might," he makes use of the 
different instruments of war which were the most common in those days, 
and spiritualizes them. In this way, Christians must put on the whole 
armor of God. 

If I mistake not, the foregoing remarks serve to show the force of the 
passage at the head of this Letter. — " That ye should earnestly contend 
for the faith once delivered unto the saints." The apostle Jude, in this 
passage, must have referred to the word of God as preached by him, and 
the other apostles, after the resurrection of Christ ; and consequently we 
see how soon great and dangerous errors crept into the church. The 
book of Jude seems to have been a general epistle, directed to all the 
ministers and churches, to guard them against the errors and corrup- 
tions which were spreading far and wide ; and they were called upon to 
act with decision. They must earnestly contend for the true faith. I trust 
no one believes, that the apostle intended the use of carnal weapons by 
this expression. He had been taught by Christ in person to be " wise 
as a serpent, and harmless as a dove ;" and he doubtless desired, that 
all his brethren would walk by the same rule. 

But this would be consistent with contending earnestly ; otherwise an 
inspired apostle would not have given such a direction to the ministers 
and churches. The setting up of Christ's kingdom, and its progress in 
this world of opposition to truth and righteousness, require both aggres- 
sive and defensive action. The command is plain that the gospel must 
be published to the nations — " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature." Now it is well known, that though the 
apostles entered upon the execution of their commission, in the most 
harmless manner, they excited great commotions and tumults, on account 
of the desperate depravity of men, and the instigations of Satan, But 
here was no reason why they should not go forward. And it should never 
be forgotten, that the first establishment of the gospel, in any given place, 
does not end the contest. The same opposition to truth and holiness ex 
ists afterwards, so far as the depraved heart remains unsubdued ; and 
consequently they must be defended in every way in which they are 
attacked. The u Captain of the Lord's host" is too wise a commander 
to leave the stations he has acquired from the enemy without the means 
of defence. What use will there be in the conquest of whole kingdoms, 
if they are afterward left unprotected ? Now the contending for the 
faith once delivered to the saints, necessarily implies, that this faith had 
been, in some measure at least, established ; but that it was in danger of 
being lost, and that the greatest efForts were to be made to preserve it. 



O LETTERS TO THE 

Is there not need of caution here, lest this essential part of the Christian 
warfare be neglected ? The true faith being once established, is there 
no danger that we may feel too secure, as though it never could be up- 
rooted ? Is it not possible, that we may be misled even by our love of 
peace; and through fear of making unnecessary excitement, suffer error 
to creep in, and take an advantage over us, which we cannot reverse ? 
The question about the necessity of religious controversy should not be 
settled by fancy, or by the opinions of " wise men after the flesh," but 
by what is actually going on in the kingdom of Christ. If the word of 
God is attacked wholly, or in part ; if its great doctrines are undermined, 
and its precepts and institutions rejected ; or if any thing is added to it 
as of superior or equal authority, its friends are bound to defend it with- 
out any apology for so doing. They must " earnestly contend for" all 
the truths it contains, nor silently suffer one of them to be rejected or 
cast into the shade, by the inventions of men. Can any duty be plainer 
than this ? Hence there is no duty more strongly enjoined upon the dis- 
ciples of Christ, than that they should watch. "Watch and pray, that 
ye enter not into temptation." " What I say unto you, I say unto all, 
watch." " But this know, that if the good man of the house had known 
in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would 
not have suffered his house to be broken up." 

If the question be, what is to be watched ? the answer is ready. The 
soldiers of Christ, in common with the rest of mankind, have " hearts 
deceitful above all things;" and if they cease watching, they must ex- 
pect \o fall into sin, error and delusion. And in addition, they must 
watch the motions of their " adversary the devil," whose business is, 
" From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in 
it ;" and who, when men sleep, sows tares among the wheat, and goes 
his way. Thus every soldier of Christ must remember, that he must 
follow, and obey the commands of, the Great Captain of salvation, 
whether he is required to act offensively, or defensively. He must be 
willing to " endure hardness as a good soldier." Nor is he to calculate 
upon peace and security, (any more than the soldiers of an earthly com- 
mander,) till honorably discharged ; and this, in his case, is only by 
death. He has no reason to expect he shall outlive the time, (unless he 
lives till the millenium,) when he rrn^ be called upon " earnestly to con- 
tend for the faith once delivered unto the saints." 

" Ne'er think the victory won, 
Nor once at ease sit down ; 
The arduous work will not be done, 
Till thou hast got thy crown." 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, 



LETTER II. 



2 COR. 10; 4, 5. — '"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through 

GOD TO THE PULLING DOWN OF STRONG HOLDS. CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS AND EVERV HIGH 
THING THAT EXALTETH ITSELF AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND BRINGING INTO CAPTIVITY 
EVERY THOUGHT TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST." 

These words plainly teaeh us what is one of the great objects of the 
gospel ministry ; and they describe with perfect definiteness the bound- 
ary of all theological systems. Casting down imaginations. All schemes 
of religion, not founded on the word of God, or on known facts in the 
works of creation and providence, are of course the inventions of men ; 
the works of imagination. It was an express object of the apostles to 
cast down these imaginations ; and so it should be of every minister of 
Jesus Christ: it is what Christ plainly demands. He demands it as ex- 
pressly as he demands the surrender of our hearts. Indeed it is a part 
of such surrender. 

And every high thing that exalteth itself against the knoivledge of God. 
All species of philosophy, however ingeniously contrived and sustained, 
if they do not conform entirely to that knowledge of God which is ob- 
tained by searching the scriptures, are to be cast down, totally rejected, 
as the works of imagination. And bringing into captivity every thought 
to the obedience of Christ. Obedience to Christ necessarily implies obe- 
dience to all his commands, faith in all his revealed will, and a desire to 
copy his example. The great object of every gospel minister should be, 
to make captive all the powers of the soul, every thought. Nothing should 
remain in us creating a desire to incorporate the least thing into our re- 
ligion, or system of theology, which is not in complete subjection to the 
word of Christ. Hence the plain, direct, definite object of the gospel 
ministry, as it was established by the inspired apostles, discarJs entirely 
on religious subjects, all a priori propositions, positions, statements and 
reasonings, which are independent of the scriptures ; and all supposi- 
tions which are designed directly or indirectly, openly or secretly, to 
give shape to any part of theology. Also the ministry of the gospel as 
received from Christ, rejects entirely and forever, vxevy "nature of the 
case," every " nature of things,'*' all " philosophy oi religion," not 
founded on known and acknowledged facts, and every notion concerning 
any laws, out of God, or such as do not come directly under his govern- 
ment, and are not subject, to his perfect control, and in any s~nse what- 



8 LETTERS TO THE 

ever, limit or restrict him from doing, in all respects, just as he pleases, 
in all worlds, in time and in eternity. Such self- contrived schemes, 
with all the reasonings by which they are sustained, and all the conclu- 
sions drawn from them, come under the denomination of that wisdom, 
which the apostle informs us the Greeks sought after, and which the 
whole tenor of his writings discountenances. It is the wisdom of this 
world, (1 Cor. 2; 6,) that cometh to nought. It was not the duty of 
the acute Greeks, nor any other heathen, while seeking to find out the 
chief good, to waste their time in establishing curious philosophical theo- 
ries. Their business was to see and acknowledge the true God by his 
glorious works with which they were always surrounded. (Rom. 1 ; 
20.) " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world 
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
eternal power and godhead ; so that they are without excuse." 

These words clearly teach us, that had the heathen acted according 
to the light which the works of God afforded them, they would have un- 
derstood what of him is the most essential to know — even his eternal 
power and godhead. In point of conspicuousness, therefore, power takes 
the lead of all Jehovah's attributes. This passage does not declare the 
heathen to be without excuse for not discerning the divine omniscience, 
or omnipresence, or any attribute of God but his power. How strange, 
then, and how lamentable, that any in this age of boasted wisdom, and 
with the bible in their hands, should attack the ability of God in their 
philosophical speculations ! This suggestion becomes more grave still, 
if we turn our attention to the Lord's prayer, wonderfully comprehensive, 
and of course the most essential ideas only, are selected. The ascrip- 
tion in the prayer is, " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the 
glory forever." Here, again, in another of the most essential portions 
of the sacred scriptures, power is the selected representative of Jehovah's 
attributes. This is not the work of chance. Such scriptural facts, ab- 
stracted from all other proof, are sufficient to render very suspicious the 
modern speculations on theology. Why do we hear about " a nature of 
things," never hinted at in the bible, but purely the invention of men, 
which subjects Jehovah to eternal restraints in his government of moral 
beings ? Why do we hear of laws, out of God, not under his control, 
which prevent him from doing as he would be glad to do ? All such 
teachings, all such insinuations, all such probable, or barely possible 
suppositions, all such inventions, demonstrate, that the contrivers and 
propagators of them, are, for some cause or other, unwilling to have all 
their imaginations, and every high thing in them which exalteth itself 
against the knowledge of God, cast down ; and to have every thought 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 9 

of theirs brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. They are 
determined to break the sacred enclosure, and to teach men so. 

The Lord's " green pastures," though very extensive, are a bondage 
to which they cannot submit, and they must leap into the Saharas of 
philosophy and vain deceit. If we intentionally depart a millionth part 
of a hair's breadth from the word of God, we enter chaos. We may as 
well call in question the knowledge of God as his power ; the wisdom 
of God as his knowledge ; the holiness of God as his wisdom, and the 
existence of God as his holiness. It is all out of book ; and this consid- 
eration alone ought to silence the whole race of men. It does silence 
the angels of light. But " vain man would be wise, though man be born 
like a wild ass's colt." Any " nature of things," or other supposed 
laws, which are pretended to put Jehovah under the least restriction, are 
infinitely derogatory to him ; they hoist man out of his proper place, and 
draw away every believer in them from the simplicity that is in Christ. 
They are an abandonment of Protestantism, which makes the sacred 
scriptures the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice ; and they are 
an invitation to go back to the old house of bondage, which Luther and 
his coadjutors forsook. And when it is considered how tenaciously they 
are held and 'how zealously they are propagated among the youth by 
men of great influence ; and that on the other hand there is an unac- 
countable indifference on the subject among many who do not profess to 
believe in them, nothing but the supposed near approach of the millen- 
nium inspires the hope that the dark ages will not return. This " nature 
of things," these laws out of God, which it is pretended he cannot con- 
trol, are substantially the old heathenish doctrine concerning the fates, 
which the word of God utterly condemns. 



LETTER III 



PSALMS, 135; 6. — "Whatsoever the lord pleased, that did he in heaves, and in earth, in 

THE SEAS, AND ALL DEEP PLACES." 

This is a declarationjhat the Lord was perfectly supreme over all 
worlds up to a certain time. Accordingly as he is absolutely unchange- 
able, he will do whatsoever he pleases in all worlds to all eternity. 
Such unlimited supremacy and independence in God, are as clearly and 
abundantly revealed in the bible, as any thing else pertaining to him. 



10 LETTERS TO THE 

By a little examination of the scriptures, more than forty distinct classes 
of texts may be found, which most unequivocally teach this glorious 
doctrine ; while each class contains as many as two texts, and most of 
them many more, on this fundamental point of all religion. 

Now if we confine our thoughts to what God has said concerning his 
own name, we shall not want evidence of his absolute independence and 
unlimited supremacy over all worlds, in time and in eternity. In the 
third chapter of Exodus, where we read of the Lord's appearing to Mo- 
ses in the burning bush near Mount Sinai, Moses was directed to go back 
to Egypt, and lead the children of Israel out of that place. " And Moses 
said unto God, when I come to the children of Israel, and shall say unto 
them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say 
unto me, what is his name ? what shall I say unto them ?" This was 
a very proper question for Moses to ask, for so the Lord treated it, by 
giving a prompt and decisive answer in the following words : " I am 
that i am : and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 
I am hath sent me unto thee.' , We have here the most significant and 
the strongest expression, which language can employ to describe the self- 
existence, eternity, immutability, independence, supreme authority, and 
all-sufficiency of Jehovah. And it should not be forgotten, that this glo- 
rious name was not assumed merely for a particular occasion, for in the 
next verse it is added, " The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abra- 
ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you; 
this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 
Accordingly, many years afterwards, (Exodus 33,) when Moses be- 
sought the Lord to show him his glory, the Lord said to him, " I will 
proclaim the name of the Lord before thee." And what is the Lord's 
name now 1 It is this, " And will be gracious to whom I will be gra- 
cious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Twelve or 
fourteen hundred years afterwards, the Lord, by the mouth of an inspired 
apostle, claimed the same name. (Rom. 9 ; 18,) " Therefore hath he 
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." 
Theorizers would do well to remember, that God will never forget his 
name. " This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all 
generations." The name of a being always indicates his character. 
This is true, whether the being has only one name, or many. Thus the 
character of him, whom we have been wont to call the father of his 
country, is always brought to view clearly, whether we call him Wash- 
ington, George Washington, General Washington, or President Wash- 
ington ; or whether we use the phrase, " The father of his country." 
The same may be said in relation to all other beings. Accordingly, 
when we read those names in the bible, which we know are designed to 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. II 

apply to the true God, we never need be at a loss to ascertain what they 
signify. Each one means just what is intended by, " I am that I am." 
Some of these names are, Jehovah, Lord, God, Creator, Father, Son, 
Holy Ghost, Spirit, Holy Spirit, Immanuel, Jesus, Christ, Saviour, Re- 
deemer, Comforter, King, Judge. Also, there are many different terms 
and phrases in the bible which express the same name. Some of this 
description are the following. Most High ; High and lofty One ; King 
of kings ; First and the Last ; Alpha and Omega ; Almighty. That 
we may have some idea how often this glorious name is brought to view 
in the scriptures, it is ascertained, that in the Psalms alone, the words 
Lord, God, and Jehovah, occur more than 1200 times. Also, to the va- 
rious terms and phrases in the bible, designating the great I am that i 
am, must be added all the personal, relative and adjective pronouns, 
which refer to this same infinite Being. In the hundred and thirty-sixth 
Psalm, which contains but twenty-six verses, this same self-existent, 
eternal, immutable, independent, supreme, all-sufficient God is clearly 
brought to view fifty times. It must be, then, that this venerable and 
fearful name, in one form or other, presents itself many thousands of 
times id the bible, and at each time, it is a solemn attestation to the 
whole world, of what Jehovah said of himself to Moses, This is my name 
forever. 

How weak, then, and insufficient, are all the attempts of men to de- 
stroy the unlimited independence of God ! He has thousands of wit- 
nesses at his command to annihilate all the babbling of worldly wisdom 
concerning the reality of such a nature of things, or of laws uncontroll- 
able by him, as are brought forward to prove his weakness. Since we 
can know but little, why is it not best to confine our researches to what 
God has made accessable in his word and works ? Here alone is a field 
far more extensive than we shall explore in this life. And even if it 
were not so, it is better to exhaust the universe of truth before we enter 
the universe of fiction : for indeed all schemes founded on an unrevealed 
nature of things, or on laws which it is said Jehovah cannot control, are 
as purely fictitious as the novels and romances of this or any other age. 
This is a truth with which those ought to be acquainted, who hear from 
the pulpit on one Sabbath, a theology founded in fiction, and perhaps the 
next Sabbath are warned against tolerating fictitious writings on other 
subjects. The ministers of the gospel should be the last class of men to 
imitate Eve, who partook of the forbidden fruit, when she saw it was a 
" tree to he desired to make one wise." She has had so many imitators 
in this respect among her descendants, that even if we were to confine 
our thoughts to this one view, there would be sufficient reason to believe, 
that a sinful bias, (original sin,) has descended from her. 



12 LETTERS TO THE 



LETTER IV. 



THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

DEUT. 28; 58. — "That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD 
THY god;- 

Every attentive reader of the Bible must be struck with the special 
care of Jehovah to make us all deeply venerate his name. The words 
just quoted are near the close of that chapter, which contains a greater 
number of awful threatenings than any -other chapter in the Bible ; and 
in such a connection, that they present the most awful, overwhelming 
sense of the infinite power and majesty and displeasure of God. Such 
a sense all the ancient saints had, whose writings or sayings form a part 
of the divine revelation. It will comport with the limits of this let- 
ter to select but a very few, among the numerous specimens found in 
the Bible. In the 13th chapter of Job, he reproves his three friends for 
what he considers their wrong doings, and says : " Shall not his excel- 
lency make you afraid 1 and his dread fail upon you V In the same 
chapter, Job entreats Jehovah thus : " Only do not two things unto me ; 
then will I not hide myself from thee. Withdraw thine hand far from 
me; and let not thy dread make me afraid." These views of God, 
which Job had, correspond with what he says of himself, Matthew, 1 ; 
14 : " For I am a great king, saith the Lord of Hosts, and my name is 
dreadful among the heathen." So he intends the whole world shall view 
his name. 

In the tenth chapter of Daniel, he had such a view of the Son of 
God, that he said : " There remained no strength in me ; for my come- 
liness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength." 

Isaiah had such a view of God in a vision, (Chap. 6.) that he ex- 
claimed : " Woe is me, for I am undone ; for I am a man of unclean 
lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips : for mine eyes 
have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." And what else did he notice 
in this glorious vision ? It was the worship, which the seraphim, a 
high order of angels, paid to God. Nothing can exceed the reverence 
which they expressed. " Each one had six wings : with twain he cov- 
ered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did 
fly. And one cried unto another, and said : Holy, holy, holy is the 
Lord of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory." Now if this 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 13 

highest order of holy angels, as is believed by many, if these burning 
ones, as their name imports, manifest such profound reverence and awe 
of God as to hide their faces with their wings and cry one to another, as 
though they dare not speak directly to Jehovah, " Holy, holy, holy is 
the Lord of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory ;" how humble 
a place ought the sinful children of men to take before this glorious 
Being ; what exalting thoughts of him, and what abasing thoughts of 
themselves, ought they forever to entertain ; and how careful and 
respectful ought they to be in the choice of their words concerning 
him ! How much to be admired is the example of Sir Matthew Hale, 
whose reverence of God was such, that he was in the habit of making 
a pause both before and after he used a term which expressed that 
" glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD." 

On the other hand, how far from scriptural reverence of God, is the 
language employed of late in hypothetical theology ! How much has 
been said, and preached, and written, to show the straits into which the 
Almighty is supposed to be thrown in his attempts to govern the uni- 
verse as he would desire ! How much has been said to show what God 
cannot do, in relation to what he would do if he could ! — that he has as 
much on hand as he can accomplish ! — that he has done all he can do 
for sinners while they are remaining in impenitence ! — that, at least, he 
has done all he can for them, up to the present time ! (Does any one 
know what is the use of such a qualification ?) There is such a con- 
trast between all insinuations of Jehovah's inability, and the whole cur- 
rent of the Scriptures, embracing the reverence of the heavenly hosts, 
that every old-fashioned Bible Christian can be at no loss why all 
should be cautioned to " beware of philosophy and vain deceit." 

It should never be forgotten that one form of irreverence leads on to 
another. I once heard a minister preach, who was " in the dizzy 
heights of" popularity. Before the sermon, I was expecting that the 
most solemn truths would be poured forth like a resistless torrent. But 
most of the sermon was very dry ; only the speaker took it upon him 
to point out God's duty in two or three particulars, as though God was 
but a humble hearer ! When philosophy and vain deceit are the order 
of the day, no one can conjecture how low the Sovereign of the uni- 
verse will be put down. Thus whole classes of theological students, 
who are preparing to become pastors and missionaries, gather around 
the professor's chair, that they may be initiated into all the depths and 
heights of the modern improvements in theological science ; and they 
hear it gravely announced, that in a certain case, " man is the giant 
and God is the child /" How a professedly Christian community can 



14 LETTERS TO THE 

endure to hear the infinite God of all their hopes insulted to this degree, 
is beyond my comprehension. What less can be expected than that 
a fatal blight will seize upon the churches that wink at such 
instructions ? 



LETTER V. 

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
EXODUS, 20; 7. — "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for 

THE LORD WILL NOT HOLD HIM GUILTLES3 THAT TAKETH HIS NAME IN VAIN." 

It seems that those who have advanced the most exceptionable views 
concerning Jehovah, profess at the same time, to adopt the Westminster 
Catechism for their creed. In that excellent summary of Christian 
doctrine, are the following questions and answers. Q. " Which is the 
third commandment ? A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not 
take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold 
him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Q. What is required in 
the third commandment ? A. The third commandment requireth the holy 
and reverend use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word 
and works." Query : Is it anything akin to a holy and reverend use 
of God's names, titles and attributes, to represent him as being put into 
straits and difficulties as his ignorant, dependent creatures are ? To 
represent him as not doing all the good he desires, while he does all the 
good he possibly can ? To represent him as being necessarily under 
the control of the nature of things, or of laws out of himself 7 Is it 
anything akin to a holy and reverend use of God's names, titles and 
attributes, to represent him in a given case to be as far beneath man as 
a child is beneath a giant ? 

Q. " What is forbidden in the third commandment ? A. The third 
commandment forbiddeth all profaning or abusing of anything whereby 
God maketh himself known." Taking the Scriptures for my guide, if 
God's name has not been profaned and abused in a revolting and shock- 
ing manner, by modern theorizers, then I must confess my ignorance 
of the use of language. 

Again. In answer to the question, " What is God?" the catechism, 
among other things, says : " he is infinite in power." The definition 
of infinite, if we adopt Webster's Dictionary for our standard, is, 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 15 

* without limits ; unbounded ; boundless ; not circumscribed ; applied 
to timet space and qualities." Is it then, a holy and reverend use of 
God's infinite power, to limit it, to bound it, to circumscribe it ? To 
put man, in a specific case, in point of ability, as much above God as a 
giant is above a child ? What can be more inconsistent with a belief 
in the Westminster Catechism ? Where is there a professedly Christian 
catechism which matches such irreverent use, such abuse, of any one 
of Jehovah's attributes? 

When the ministers of the gospel come forward publicly, in the most 
responsible circumstances, and solemnly declare their belief in the 
infinite power of God, we have a right to expect that they understand 
and mean just what they say ; that they declare Jehovah's power to be 
unlimited, unbounded, boundless, not circumscribed ; that they intend 
to put at rest all questions upon this subject forever. That degree of 
confidence in them, which is essential to Christian charity, and which 
is essential even to hold society together, forbids us to doubt their sin- 
cerity and their determination consistently to carry out their profession. 
What, then, must we think, if they inform us that " the power of God 
must be limited somewhere ? That God cannot so alter the nature of 
things as to make two and two, any number but four ; or, that the 
whole of a thing shall not be greater than a part? That he cannot 
cause the same thing to be and not to be at the same time ; and the 
like ? Of all this we know nothing. And what if we did ? There is 
no more connection between such impossibilities, (if indeed they are 
impossibilities,) and what God would be glad to accomplish, than there 
is between any other things which are totally remote from each other. 
But even if there were such a connection, as some philosophers claim, 
it cannot change the meaning of words. Hence it is clear in my 
mind, that the man who declares his belief in the infinite power of God 
and yet enters into such speculations as I have noticed, sets at naught 
his religious creed, so far as one of Jehovah's essential attributes is 
concerned ; and is responsible for the imposition practiced upon an 
honest community anxious to know what he really believes. Nor does 
it lessen the fault to pretend, that his speculations are nothing but sup- 
positions. What have we to do with suppositions, which call in ques- 
tion the truth of any point, after we have given our unqualified assent 
to it, and in the most responsible circumstances ? This appears to me, 
to be a most uncalled for trifling with a creed — a declared insincerity, 
startling to hypocrisy itself. What is a religious creed worth, and 
what is it for, if it regards neither the current of the sacred Scriptures, 
nor the meaning of words according to standard authors? Especially, 
if its signers disregard the meaning of a word of so much consequence 



16 LETTERS TO THE 

as infinite ? To call Jehovah infinite, and then limit him ; to assert as 
an essential part of a creed, that he is a Being of infinite power, and 
then set all their ingenuity to work, to show what he cannot do in rela- 
tion to what he would do if he could, though sanctioned or winked 
at by great names, is at war with all reverence of God, and even with 
literature itself. Finite creatures limiting infinite power, and telling 
what it cannot do ! 

I have hitherto believed in the importance of creeds. But if such is 
to be the result of them, then away with them forever. Nothing at the 
present day has so much deceived the public mind on theology, as the 
professed belief of some distinguished men, in the Westminster Cate- 
chism, who at the same time are supposing, and guessing, and insinu- 
ating, and reasoning, against one of the fundamental principles of that 
venerable creed — I mean, of course, the infinite power of God. What 
if (as I have seen) strenuous attempts are made to prove the consis- 
tency between modern speculations and that confession of faith, by the 
mere dint of metaphysical skill? — A method which some trust in to 
prove anything and everything and nothing, as they please ! This by 
no means satisfies the common sense of the public. They want the 
truth conveyed to them, according to the daily use of language, without 
chicanery. But least of all do they desire, that those who are set to 
defend morals and religion, should so use words as to appear profane to 
sober sense, and triflers with what they profess to believe in, and then 
virtually father it on to the Westminster Catechism ! Our Puritan 
ancestors, who are our own boast for soundness of belief and excellency 
of character, would not have discovered the least consistency between 
New Divinity and the Westminster Catechism, had they studied them 
ten thousand ages. This we may know by what they have published ; 
for the whole tendency of their representations of God was to place 
him on the throne, in a sense directly contrary to the tendency of 
modern speculations. The schemes of the old believers in the West- 
minster Catechism, and of modern theorizers diverge farther and far- 
ther, and will continue to do so forever. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 17 



LETTER VI 



PROVERBS, 20 ; 25. — "It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy : and 

AFTER VOWS TO MAKE INQUIRY." 

A vow is a promise made to God that we will do something for him. 
It is, therefore, a snare to any one to vow, and afterwards to be dissatis- 
fied, and desire to be released from the obligation which the vow impo- 
ses ; or to give a more liberal explanation of it, than the terms in which 
it was expressed naturally imply. A profession of our faith in God 
lays us under the obligation of a vow ; and it is equally a snare to us to 
recant, or to explain it differently from what the words naturally express. 
For example ; if we publicly profess to believe in the infinite power of 
God, we bring ourselves into a snare, not only by asserting that this 
power must be limited, so that we may build a theory on its limitation, 
but also if for this purpose we raise a, possible supposition on the subject. 
A supposition in such a connection necessarily implies douot, uncer- 
tainty ; and if we make it on the side of limiting God's power, after we 
have declared in our creed, that his power is infinite, we are like him, 
who after vows makes inquiry. If a man declares his belief in the infi- 
nite power of God, as a part of his religious creed, and raises the least 
doubt about it afterward by the name of possible supposition, he as really 
breaks his pledge, as though he positively denied such part of his creed ; 
and he must be responsible for this breach of promise. Accordingly it 
is not in the least satisfactory to hear those who have adopted the West- 
minster Catechism attempt to excuse themselves for doubting whether 
God may have been able to prevent sin, because they say it is only a 
possible supposition. What if it is nothing but a possible supposition ? 
It is a doubt about the truth of what they have declared they fully be- 
lieve. This must of course destroy confidence in what they had said as 
being their positive belief. Take any other doctrine, say, the Divinity 
of Christ. If a minister should raise the supposition that Christ may not 
be God, after he had signed the common orthodox creed on this subject, 
he would immediately lead his brethren to doubt his soundness in the 
faith. The same may be said in relation to all other doctrines, and to 
the truth of divine revelation. Such a person is at least unsettled in his 
mind, in relation to whatever doctrine he institutes a possible supposi- 
tion, He doubts what his creed declares is his positive belief; and it is 
3 



18 LETTERS TO THE 

impossible for one who understands the subject, to view and trust him 
in any other light than as unsettled, not established in the faith of the 
gospel. 

Thus he not only brings himself into a snare, but those also who con- 
fide in him as one who has a positive belief in the truths of his creed. 
There certainly is a deception, whether it be designed or not. Such is 
the conclusion to which I have found myself obliged to ai-rive, by the 
most careful examination I have been able to make of the speculations 
of the Theological Professors at Yale College. This has been my con- 
viction for many years. It should be observed, also, that this deception 
is become peculiarly injurious, because the Professors have made so 
much of the supposition, that God may not have been able to prevent sin 
in a moral universe. One of them has declared that the belief, that 
God is able to prevent sin, leads to Universalism, Infidelity and to Athe- 
ism ; and the other Professors have expressed no dissent from this opin- 
ion. Let it never be forgotten, that such is the result of believing in a 
possible supposition, which the Professors declare is consistent with a 
belief of the infinite power of God; while no one doubts that all believ- 
ers in the Westminster Catechism, till the Professors came upon the stage y 
took it for granted, that God was able to prevent all sin, had he so 
pleased, and yet have a moral system. 

As I have been painfully convinced for a long time, that such hypo- 
thetical speculations, with the confusion they bring, are very injurious 
to the cause of truth and godliness, I proposed to Professor Goodrich and 
his colleagues, some time ago, the following question : " Has God a per- 
fect control over the hearts of all moral beings V I thought this was the 
sure test question, — that there could be no evasion. If God has a per- 
fect control over the hearts of all moral beings, then they do not stand 
in the way of his doing in all respects just as he pleases. So far as ob- 
structing him is concerned, they are mere cyphers. Their free agency 
can no more stand in his way than any thing else. He can have as 
entire control over them in one place as in another ; at one time as well 
as at another ; in one world as well as in another : — and he can make 
all their combined agencies and influences as completely subservient to 
him, as the agency of one. Great numbers can make no difference. 
All this is necessarily implied in the affirmative of this question. I de- 
signed there should be no loop-hole for any possible supposition to creep 
in ; neither do I believe that anti-partyism would ever dream of any place 
for the least possible doubt. 

In due time I received an answer from Professor Goodrich, in which 
he stated without the least hesitation, and in full terms, his belief in the 
affirmative of this question, and went to the bible and to orthodox creeds 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 19 

to show his correctness. In my next letter to him I say, " Your answer 
would be entirely satisfactory to me, were it not for the supposition 
which you and your colleagues have maintained, that God may not have 
been able to prevent sin in a moral universe. This supposition calls in 
question the very ability which you say Jehovah possesses, and there- 
fore I cannot comprehend you. A supposition, as you use it, necessa- 
rily implies doubt, uncertainty. It is therefore to me exceedingly strange, 
that you should state this fundamental truth as what you positively be- 
lieve, without the least reserve, but still hold to a supposition which 
makes this very article of faith doubtful. In your writings, in connection 
with those of your colleagues, we rind it possible, probable, and highly 
probable, that God may not have been able to prevent sin ; and you 
reason as though you really believe in this inability in God. Yea, you 
point out the shocking consequences of believing that God could have 
prevented sin. Now, if as you state in your letter, God has perfect con- 
trol over the hearts of all moral beings, then he certainly can prevent sin 
whenever he pleases. There is no mistake." " Neither can I believe 
you have any more authority for instituting a supposition against Jeho- 
vah's ability, than against his moral character, or his existence. And if 
some skeptic like David Hume, should start up, and take that advantage 
of religion which your writings give, he would cut out work for minis- 
ters other than to suppose things against the almighty power of God." 
" I stated in my letter to you, that your answer to the question, ' Has 
God the perfect control over the hearts of all moral beings V would be 
very important to me. I did not conceive it possible, that after you so 
well knew my trouble about your hypothetical speculations, you would 
promptly answer the question in the affirmative, but give no intimation 
that you had renounced your supposition. Is it possible, Sir, that you 
can answer this question in the affirmative, without suggesting the least 
qualification, and still hold to the supposition, and the various deductions 
derived from it ? Such a proceeding seems to me no better than it 
would be to declare in a court of justice, under oath, that a certain thing 
is true ; but away from the court, to express doubts concerning the truth 
of it, and even labor to convince every body, that the thing is not true, 
and point out the shocking consequences of believing it." 

This last sentence gave Dr. Goodrich great offence. He thought I 
did as much as to make him a perjurer. 

Here, then, is a full admission on his part that while he declares pos- 
itively, that God has a perfect control over the hearts of all moral beings, 
he has instituted a supposition against this positive belief, and has drawn 
various conclusions from it. If lie had not done thus, he certainlv 
would have denied the application to himself. I do not hesitate to say, 



20 LETTERS TO THE 

that such a course would be perjury in me, according to the views I 
have entertained from my youth. When I was licensed to preach, and 
when I was ordained, I considered the confession of faith I made to those 
who licensed, and those who ordained me, to be a declaration, in point 
of obligation, equal to any oath which can be administered — that there 
are no circumstances in life, which can bind a man stronger to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of what he believes ; 
and that the consequences of failing to do thus, cannot be more serious 
in a civil court, than when put into the ministerial office, by those who 
feel the responsibility of performing the act in a right manner. If two 
candidates for ordination should own the same creed before an ecclesias- 
tical council, and one of them should admit, that there is room for a sup- 
position against what he has stated, would the council consider these 
cases one and the same ? They certainly would not ; and especially if 
the one who instituted the supposition should reason upon it, and draw 
conclusions as though it were true. Neither would any of our judges 
or juries in the state's courts, or in the courts of the United States, con- 
sider these cases one and the same. If any person should doubt my 
correctness on this point, I would ask, why is a supposition attached to 
any part of a creed, if it is not designed to have any effect ? In such a 
case, it would be mere trifling. And if the design of the supposition be 
to alter, or modify the creed in the least possible degree, then the creed 
is a different one from that which has no supposition attached to it. This 
conclusion is inevitable. 

I here repeat what I have written to Dr. Goodrich, that " if the New 
Haven Professors really believe, that a supposition attached to an article 
of faith produces no alteration in it, or has no effect upon it, why should 
they have any thing to do with it ? And if they believe that a supposi- 
tion does change or modify any article of their faith, in the least possi- 
ble degree, they are bound by the law of God, as honest men, more espe- 
cially as professing christians and ministers of the gospel, and most of all 
as Professors of Theology, to give their readers and hearers and pupils 
distinct notice of such change or modification.' ' I now add, that I know 
of no occurrences of life, in which the question of honesty is more mani- 
festly involved. The suffering public are not to be put off about this. 
It is a case too palpable and urgent to inquire about standing, office, or 
influence, or whatever goes by the name of human authority. It is a 
question which involves the common principles of honesty. Yet if I 
rightly understand Dr. Goodrich, he must have a possible supposition 
attached to his creed, let consequences be what they may. In his letter 
to me dated Nov. 30, 1848, he says, " God no doubt by changing the 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 21 

course of his providence, and bringing more powerful influences to bear 
on any part of his system, might effectually secure it against the out- 
breaking of sin. But no created mind is adequate to decide what effect 
would have been produced in other portions of the universe, by such a 
departure from the system he has chosen." What created mind then 
has any business with this subject? Again, Dr. Goodrich says, "In the 
language of Dr. Porter, of Farmington, if the mighty works which were 
done in Capernaum had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have 
repented ; but what would have been the general consequence in the 
history of the world is unknown to us." What business, then, has Dr. 
Porter with the subject ? But he goes on, " Doubtless the Creator might 
have prevented the access of the tempter to our first parents, or have re- 
vealed his true character ; or by a divine influence have prevented the 
yielding to his insinuations. But can we be certain, that to have broken 
the force of the temptation, in this way, would not have begun a train of 
events, leading inevitably to a more hopeless rebellion ?" — (Chris. Spec. 
1829, p. 381.) Dr. Goodrich goes on to quote sentences of a similar 
import, from Rev. S. R. Andrews, of Woodbury. Now the misery is, 
that these gentlemen should hunt up notions of which they do not pretend 
to know any thing, in order to fabricate a possible supposition, which 
must of course be of great consequence to them in a system of theology ! 
Is this the way that the ministers of the gospel are to amuse the world, 
while their ordination vows are upon them to deal with God's truth, and 
not with the fictions of their own brains? O emptiness, emptiness ! Is 
it the way to spread their metaphysical web to catch, not flies ; but 

" A shadow of a shadow's shade," 

and so tinge their theology with it, as to help the word of God out of its 
supposed troubles, and as a recompense for such prodigious aid, oblige 
the sacred word to become subservient to worldly wisdom ? It is my 
full belief, that the honest, unsuspecting community have been imposed 
upon by mischievous hypothetical speculations, ever since Dr. Taylor 
preached the "Concio ad clerum," in 1828. A supposition is instituted and 
incessantly urged, which is totally unknown in creeds, but which is made 
essential to a system of theology. Those who adopt it can declare be- 
fore God and the world, that God is infinite in power, and that he has a 
perfect control over the hearts of all moral beings ; yet they hunt up, 
talk about, and work in, a possible supposition ; ora" you cannot prove 
the contrary;" or a "who knows but that," &c. &c., which as really 
changes the character of the creed, as any form of words can do it, and 
which of course is expressly designed for this purpose. 



22 LETTERS TO THE 

Is it possible that such men and those who sympathize with them can 
flatter themselves that the religious public will be forever quiet while 
caught in this snare ? They may as well expect that the eruptions of 
Etna will be subservient to their dictates. They must themselves 
quench the fire they have kindled, or it will burn. God will raise up, 
not only those who believe that his word ought to be kept pure from the 
contrivances of man, but who will defend it from all anti-Protestant 
machinations, or they will, like many of their brethren now in heaven, 
seal their testimony with their blood. And their efforts will be crowned 
with success. The millennium will not commence till God's word shall 
emerge from the eclipse of all possible suppositions to weaken its holy 
truths ; nor till men shall be afraid to attack Jehovah's ability, after they 
have solemnly, before God and his church, assented to a creed which 
defends it. The heart sickens at so great an appearance of duplicity 
and faithlessness. Such things have not been expected in the ministers 
of the gospel, and those of high standing; and it is probable some 
people will remain incredulous from the fact that these things seem too 
monstrous to be believed. Hence, no doubt, has arisen the great back- 
wardness of many to draw the curtain aside, and let the community see, 
what must and will be seen, when the means shall be laid before it with- 
out disguise. A company of theologians of great name, acting a part in 
concert, which carries the appearance of a complete hoax of long stand- 
ing, and far the biggest that has ever been practiced in our country 
since it was settled ! It is no light thing to impose upon an honest un- 
suspecting community in this manner. Many feel deeply injured by 
it, and common frankness impels some, at least, to state things just as 
they are, nor will they be charmed or panic struck at the evolutions and 
contortions, and tergiversations and quibbles of " the philosophy of 
religion." 

The reader will not forget, that long quotations made in this letter, 
are taken verbatim from my letter to Dr. Goodrich, which he has since 
answered. In his answer he says, " You do not pretend that I misun- 
derstood your question, or that my answer, yes, does not meet every 
point you contemplated. And yet you are not satisfied." How could 
Dr. Goodrich say so, when, as the reader has seen, I said to him, 
" Your answer would be entirely satisfactory to me, were it not for the 
supposition which you and your colleagues have maintained, that God 
may not have been able to prevent sin in a moral universe." Did I not 
pretend, that the answer, " yes," does not meet every point I contem- 
plated ? I did pretend that Dr. Goodrich's answer did not meet every 
point I contemplated ; and in language which I never thought any body 
would mistake. I said, " Your answer would be entirely satisfactory 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 23 

to me, were it not for the supposition," &c. Is here not an excep- 
tion, and as plain a one as Dr. Goodrich could make himself? I ask 
again, and I do it with pain, How could Dr. Goodrich assert, that I did 
not pretend but that his answers met every point ? " And yet you pro- 
fess not to be satisfied." Yes, Dr. Goodrich may rest assured, that I 
was not satisfied. I am not ashamed to own it. How can I be satisfied 
when Dr. Goodrich assures me, that he fully believes God has a perfect 
control of the hearts of all moral beings, while he keeps up a supposi- 
tion, which makes this very declaration doubtful? This I have clearly 
proved. Dr. Goodrich then proceeds, " And why are you not satisfied ?" 
(He answers the question himself.) " Simply and solely because you 
cannot see how my answer is consistent with a certain ' supposition' of 
ours to which you object. But are you infallible in your discernment 
on subjects ?" I am not satisfied, Dr. Goodrich, and it is because you 
seem determined to make me believe, that it is precisely the same creed 
with, or without, a supposition attached to it. I ask Dr. Goodrich again, 
and I should be glad if my question could be heard from Maine to Cali- 
fornia, and from California to the mouth of the Columbia, why the The- 
ological Professors at Yale College should introduce, and hold on to their 
famous "supposition," if they mean nothing by it — if it has no effect 
upon their religious creed ? Is an article of faith precisely the same, 
whether it be expressed positively, without any modification and reserve ; 
or whether some doubt or uncertainty belongs to it ; and especially when 
this doubt or uncertainty takes a start, occasionally, and calls in the aid 
of positive declarations, and points out the horrible consequences of be- 
lieving contrary to its dictates ? Are what is positive and what is 
doubtful, one and the same thing ? But because I believe they are not 
one and the same thing, Dr. Goodrich asks me, " Are you infallible in 
your discernment on subjects?" Yes, Dr. Goodrich, if to distinguish 
between those things, which you and your colleagues have labored for 
years to make distinct, is a mark of infallibility, then I am infallible. I 
know that two are not one, and that one is not two. Does this knowledge 
make me infallible ? 

Dr. Goodrich's glaring misstatement induces me to make some further 
remarks. It has ever been a matter of conscience with me in opposing 
others, to avoid all misrepresentations. This was my object in my 
printed Letter to the Professors at Yale College. How I succeeded may 
be known by the following facts. Dr. Goodrich and myself have, as 
the reader has perceived, had a written correspondence. In a lengthy 
letter from him, in which he has expressed great displeasure against me 
for my plainness of speech to him in one of my letters, he reviewed some 
points in my printed letter. In concluding that part of his letter he says, 



24 LETTERS TO THE 

"I have answered, as I believe, every argument in your printed letter.'. 
But in all this review he did not so much as hint at any misrepresenta- 
tion on my part, as I can find. This silence, when he was exceedingly 
displeased with me for what he considered my discourteous treatment of 
him, is sufficient proof that all my statements were fair, as all statements 
ought to he. 

I deem it wholly proper to add, that Dr. Goodrich is not the only one 
of the New Haven Professors who has misrepresented me. I have it 
from what I deem good authority, that one of the Professors has said to 
this effect, that my thoughts on the Origin of Sin, in my printed Letter, 
are as much a philosophical theory, as what I condemn in the writings of 
the Professors. It is understood also, that this opinion has been echoed 
in the state, from the infallible head-quarters. Now any person who 
reads my printed Letter to the Professors, must find on page 73, where 
I first intimated my intention to introduce what I thought would be " some 
improvement in Bible Theology," that I was perfectly explicit — showing 
that whatever scheme I might broach, I hoped would be immediately 
overset, if it could not be sustained by the word of God ; and in this con- 
nection I introduced the sweeping passage, " To the law and the testi- 
mony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no 
light in them." Now, if the reader of my printed Letter, will turn to 
pages 80 and 81, he will there find the book, chapter, and verses on 
which I profess to found my views concerning the Origin of Sin, whether 
correct or not ; and in other places he will find some of the passages, 
(among others which I could have introduced,) to sustain my Bible, not 
philosophical, views. And yet there is an attempt making by a Professor 
of Divinity in Yale College, if I am not misinformed, to fasten the absurd- 
ity upon me, of introducing a merely philosophical scheme, like the 
Professors, after I had been strenuously opposing them for so doing ! 

Without different light from any I can yet obtain, I must think, that 
these Professors would not dare treat a ministerial brother as they have 
treated me, if they did not believe themselves to be above human respon- 
sibility. Such gross misstatements and misrepresentations show the 
badness of a cause wonderfully. But they teach us what is more seri- 
ous, still — they point us to the ninth commandment, — " Thou shalt not 
bear false witness against thy neighbor." 

It is my belief, that the unenviable position of the Professors might 
have been prevented, if after they had professed the orthodox creed, 
with all the solemnity of a vow, they had not been disposed to make 
inquiry, by means of a non-committal supposition. This has brought 
them into a snare, from which they can never extricate themselves, by 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 25 

" a dignified silence,' 7 or by misrepresentations, or by a violation of the 
decalogue. 

I fully believe the bible, and all the doctrines it contains, to be true ; 
that is, I believe them to be true without a possible supposition to raise 
any doubt on the subject ; and that it is the indispensable duty of all to 
ground their theological views entirely upon them as illustrated by God's 
works of creation and providence. On the other hand, I as fully be- 
lieve it is wrong, and that it is charging God and his word foolishly, to 
introduce into our religious belief, any fancies, surmises, conjectures, 
may-bes, suppositions, nature of things, laws out of God not under his 
perfect control, and all pretended philosophy not founded on known and 
generally acknowledged facts ; and whatever propositions, or dogmas, 
maxims, or first principles create these conjectural things, or are crea- 
ted by them. 

If I am in an error in these statements, or in any others made on these 
sheets, I respectfully and seriously invite whoever may please, to over- 
set my arguments by the bible, if they can ; and I will do all in my 
power to disprove any accusations which may be brought against them, 
as though they were " contentious," wished to disturb the peace, or "to 
prolong controversies;" and if they succeed to convince me, I will rank 
them among my greatest benefactors. But if no scriptural efforts to 
overthrow my positions are sent to me within a reasonable time, I shall 
take it for granted that no one dares to make the attempt ; and let the 
pens and tongues and hearts of those I feel it my duty to oppose, be silent 
forever on the subject, except to recant, and repair, as far as they can, 
the injury which their unhappy speculations have inflicted on the cause 
of Christ. 



Note. — A copy of this Letter, and of all the preceding ones except the first, was 
sent abroad for several months, as the writing on the cover showed, for the express 
purpose of soliciting a reply on scripture principles ; but none has been made. And 
what was this for? I have no private ends to accomplish. It as deeply concerns 
others as myself, whether we give the word of God its proper place in our theology. 
It seems rather strange, that while I appeal to that infallible standard against New 
Divinity, no one comes forward to correct my errors, if I have advanced errors on 
the subject. I ask such freedom as a favor. Both Old and New Divinity must stand 
or fall by the Bible. Who does not know this ? If I have mistaken the meaning 
that infallible standard, is there no one willing to set me right ? No good Samaii- 
tan to have compassion upon me ? 

As I have given as fair opportunities as I have been aide for anyone to overthiow 
my refutation of New Divinity by the bible if he can ; and as 1 have invited, and 
challenged it, without effect, I come to the conclusion, and 1 have a right to dose, 
that no one dares to attempt it. I say this, not to prove my>elf inlallihh — not by 
way of boasting, as though I were superior or equal to many others, who, if they 

4 



26 LETTERS TO THE 

had seen fit to take the ground I have taken, would have performed a better service 
than I have done. But I say it to show, that there is a consciousness in the contri- 
vers and leaders in New Divinity that it will not stand the test of the bible. Yet 
strange to tell, it was not many weeks after my Letter to the Theological Professors 
at Yale College was published, before a professedly religious periodical came out 
against the Letter and its author, not by argimient, but by ridicule ! I notice this 
simply to show the awfully corrupt state of public sentiment ; for no editor would 
have dared to take this ground, if he had not believed that Xew Divinity was for- 
ever established. 

This is a very painful consideration, but one with which the Christian public 
ought to be made acquainted. Whoever reads the Letter which I addressed to the 
Professors, must perceive, that my great object was to subject the speculations of 
these gentlemen on the fundamental doctrines of religion, to the test of God's holy 
word. This, I believe, no one will dare deny. Now, if there had been an attempt 
at argument, though unsatisfactory; and if there had been an attempt at wit with 
such argument, the case would have been different. But for a man to be attacked 
with wit and ridicule, without the shadow of argument, and from a professedly re- 
ligious source, merely because he is determined to hold wild speculators to the word 
of God, savors of any thing rather than of Christian sobriety, and an attachment to 
serious religion. When the scoffers and infidels of the last century took such ground 
against the word of God, those who defended it said that jestings and wit and ridi- 
cule were not argument. I had thought, that the professed advocates of the bible 
in the present age, had learned this lesson ; especially those who would be promi- 
nent theologians, and would take it upon them to guide public opinion. The seri- 
ous, enlightened, straight-forward course of the fathers in Connecticut, gave respect 
and dignity to theology. But these qualities, " as a brook, and as the stream of 
brooks, pass away." This must be the case so long as a hypothetical theology 
claims to take the place of unflinching Puritanism, and is defended by such weap- 
ons as infidels have been wont to use in their attacks upon the word of life. This 
mode of defence is usually in keeping with the cause defended. 

Oh ! What has become of that universal jealousy for the plain, positive truths of 
God's holy word, which was formerly so conspicuous in Connecticut ? A dreadful 
responsibility rests somewhere ! If any one had told me thirty years ago that things 
would ever come to such a pass, especially in my day, it seems to me I should have 
thought him a fair candidate for bedlam. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 27 



LETTER VII. 

HYPOTHESES OR SUPPOSITIONS. 
ROMANS, 14; 23. — "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not 

OF FAITH J FOR WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN." 

It is not my intention to give a minute comment upon these words ; 
but we necessarily find this truth in them, that doubts, when standing in 
the way of faith, are bad and dangerous things. Hence, the more free 
our religion is from doubts, the better. But hypotheses or suppositions 
always imply doubt, uncertainty ; and show that the mind is unsettled on 
any doctrine, concerning which a supposition or hypothesis is instituted. 
Though it may be our prevailing belief that the Bible is the word of 
God, yet if we institute a supposition on the subject, we virtually 
declare that our minds are unsettled in relation to the truth of divine 
revelation. The same may be said in relation to any doctrine or duty 
which is supposed to be found in the Bible. Thus if we institute a 
possible supposition that God may not have been able to prevent sin, we 
show at once, that we are not established in the belief that he has such 
perfect control of the hearts of all moral beings as establishes the doc- 
trine of his supreme independence. 

But it is important to inquire when an hypothesis or supposition may 
be used with propriety. One occasion is, when we give our opinions 
with moderation and care. Thus it is common to say, " we sup- 
pose" that such a thing is true, or not true, as the case may be. In the 
next place, a supposition is useful to illustrate truth. The parables of 
Christ are implied suppositions. Something is imagined to be true, to 
make what is true appear more vivid. Again : Hypotheses or suppo- 
sitions are often used in our investigations of the truth in the sciences ; and 
are simply the means which are employed to obtain an object. No doubt 
Copernicus first instituted the hypothesis that the world might be round ; 
and by investigating the subject on this principle, he finally proved the 
fact. It appears, also, that suppositions are used in certain mathemati- 
cal rules, as the means of coming to the true results. In the rule of 
Position, certain numbers are supposed, to assist the student to perform 
the sum. But in all such cases, the hypotheses or suppositions are 
designed only as the means to obtain the end and not as the end itself. 
The same may be said concerning instituting a supposition to ascertain 



28 . LETTERS TO THE 

the meaning of an obscure passage of Scripture. We never ought to 
make such a passage a part of our creed, till we get further than to 
suppose it may be so. If the Bible were an uncertain book, its mean- 
ing, or origin, or both, doubtful ; the case would be essentially different. 
But such doubtful belief, or rather doubting, was not the faith of the 
Puritans of New England ; and it is strange enough that an attempt 
should be made, and stranger still, that such an attempt should be 
countenanced, to introduce a hypothetical theology, and pretend that it 
is a desirable improvement upon the positive, straight-forward, scriptu- 
ral belief of our fathers. So far from being progressive, it is clearly a 
retrograde movement. Indeed, it implies a rebuke to such men as the 
Edwardses, and Bellamy, and Hopkins, and Strong, and Dwight, and a 
host of others, for believing positively, what their creed taught them ; 
for their creed was the same as that which is now professed by those 
who have reserved the right of supposing against it. While it is not 
pretended, that we can so well understand the Bible as to form a posi- 
tive conclusion concerning everything contained in it, we certainly 
ought to be fully persuaded concerning those leading doctrines, which 
compose our creed ; and all doubting here is a reflection cast upon the 
Bible and its great Author, for pretending to give us a sufficient rev- 
elation. 

Another extremely unpleasant circumstance attending the New Divin- 
ity supposition is, it is made to perform the part of slanderous insinuations 
against the character of God. We have already seen, that according 
to the Westminster Catechism, " the third commandment forbiddeth all 
profaning or abusing of anything whereby God maketh himself 
known." Now every one knows, that an attack upon any divine attri- 
bute is profaning and abusing it ; and it may, with perfect propriety be 
added, that it is as evil in the sight of God, to call in question his 
almighty power, as his holiness. 

To this remark it may possibly be objected, that power is only a nat- 
ural attribute of God ; but holiness pertains to his moral character ; 
and accordingly, though it may be wrong to call in question a moral 
attribute of God, it may not be wrong to call in question the extent 
which some attach to his natural attribute of power. But we should 
remember that it is man, not the Bible, who makes this distinction 
between the natural and moral attributes of God. According to the 
Bible, both classes of the divine attributes are equally sacred ; and this 
is the view which the Assembly of Divines took of the subject. It 
does appear to me,. that if this thought had occurred to the contrivers of 
New Divinity, their courage would have failed them. If they had 
considered, that for aught that appears in the Bible, it is as wicked to 
doubt Jehovah's ability as his holiness, they would have preferred to 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 29 

have the palsy seize their hands before they could record what they 
have recorded concerning what Jehovah cannot do in relation to what 
he would do if he could. I have never had but one opinion about such 
speculations, and it is, that they are not only profane but blasphemous. 
So they ought to be treated and so children ought to be taught. But 
even setting aside the profaneness and blasphemy of treating Jehovah in 
this manner, such a method of laboring to carry a point sets a wretched 
example. It encourages the practice of throwing out every kind of 
slanderous insinuation against the absent, which the most malignant 
backbiter can devise. It is recorded on the page of history, that the 
New Haven Professors took much pains to point out the horrible conse- 
quences of believing that God could prevent sin in a moral universe ; 
and after a while, they jointly declared, that they never had affirmed this 
inability in him ! As though they must be excused, because they did 
not affirm ! Then I may be excused for sending my insinuations 
against the Professors through the country, by supposing they are 
incompetent to hold their stations ; and that they are every way a com- 
pany of unworthy men. I can labor this point with all my might, till 
they call me to an account ; and then I can have the boldness to tell 
them that I never affirmed that they were incompetent and unworthy. 
Now according to their own example in their treatment of Jehovah, 
they must be satisfied with me. Thus the malicious defamer may go 
on with his doubtful insinuations and produce unspeakable mischief in 
society, and congratulate himself all the while, that he has affirmed 
nothing bad about any one. How long could society exist, if such 
conduct were to be tolerated ? And we must not forget, that God is 
thus treated in this age of the mind's rapid march ! 



30 LETTERS TO THE 



LETTER VIII . 

PROVERBS, 19; 21. — "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the 

COUNSEL OF THE LORD, THAT SHALL STAND." 

The theological Professors at Yale College, in their statement, which 
was published in 1835, say that their onty object in instituting the sup- 
position that God may not have been able to prevent sin, was to set 
aside the doctrine, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good ; 
which doctrine, they say, " we consider as going directly to impeach 
God's sincerity as a lawgiver, and to weaken the motive to obedience 
among his subjects. Beyond this, we are entirely ready to say as to 
the permission of sin : Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
sight." 

In a letter from Dr. Goodrich, dated November 30th, 1848, while 
noticing the same topic, he says: " The object of our theory did not 
require us to assert anything more than a possible truth. Our design 
was not, like that of Hopkins, to offer any positive solution to account 
for the existence of evil, by the supposition of anything as known and 
certain. We aimed merely to open a way to escape from this theory, 
for those who felt there was no possible reason but the one he had 
assigned, why a benevolent God should admit sin into our system. All 
we had to do, therefore, was to point out another reason, as possible." 

There are very strong objections to what Dr. Goodrich here states as 
the plan which he and his colleagues pursued. If they believed that 
Dr. Hopkins' theory was not true, why did they not attack it directly 
and establish one of their own 1 The very fact that they would not do 
so, looks as though they dared not to attempt to gainsay Hopkins. 
This is no way to come at truth ; and such a proceeding is an implicit 
acknowledgment of the weakness of their own cause. It seems they 
felt themselves shut up by Hopkins ; and the most they expected was to 
crawl out through the hole of a supposition. In so doing, they estab- 
lished nothing ; nor did they offer a single argument against Hopkins. 
Such a procedure is the more strange, from what we shall soon more 
particularly notice, that the word of God is found, as Dr. Goodrich 
says, to be against Hopkins' theory. He however attempts to illustrate 
the correctness of this course, by what we may say to a convicted 
sinner, who is sinking into despair by virtue of Hopkins' theory. In 
order to relieve his mind, we may show him that his despair proceeds 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 31 

from " a groundless assumption" And why not take a more simple 
and sure course, by telling him that the scriptures do not prove him to 
be deserted of God ? Nothing can be more futile than to leave the 
Bible for suppositions, in order to help a despairing sinner. It is an 
attempt to be wise above what is written. It is a reflection upon both 
the word and the providence of God ; as though he suffers cases to 
occur, for which he has made no provision, and for which great We 
must provide by our own wisdom. I hesitate not to say that such a 
course is totally opposed to the Protestant doctrines of the sufficiency 
of the sacred scriptures. I have uniformly believed that argument 
should be met by argument, reasoning by reasoning, theory by theory. 
Though in this quotation by Dr. Goodrich, he calls the scheme he 
advocates, "theory," yet the general current of his writings and those 
of his colleagues makes this theory a mere supposition, a " may be," a 
" bare possibility," a " who can tell but that," a " you cannot prove 
the contrary," &c. It professes to build nothing ; it is simply a demol- 
ishes In the hands of its supporters, however, it seems to be consti- 
tuted a kind of dray-cart, to carry off the rubbish, which Hopkins' 
scheme spread over the Bible. 

Though I am not a believer in the doctrine, that " sin is the necessary 
means of the greatest good," yet I respect Dr. Hopkins, for he was 
frank to declare his principles. Whether he is correct or not, he is not 
afraid to own what he believes, and to advocate it. How he must have 
felt had he known before he died, that less than half a century after- 
wards, his scheme would be thought a very bad one, and yet in the 
opinion of its most learned opposers, it could not be reached by fair 
argument, but must be undermined by a non-committal supposition ! 

But we will hear what Dr. Goodrich has to say further. " This 
simple may be — this bare possibility, has been the means of leading 
thousands to abandon the supposition which had created their despair. 
From that moment, they could read the word of God, without feeling 
the necessity of turning aside its declarations from their plain and 
obvious import. They were relieved ; and that without any positive 
theory to account for the delay of their conversion. Such is the case 
before us. Many distinguished divines, like Dr. Beecher, Dr. Porter, 
Dr. Hawes, Dr. Skinner of New York, &c, who had felt themselves 
shut up by the necessity of the case to the adoption of the old theory, 
have been led by the suggestions of Dr. Taylor, to reconsider this 
subject. They saw, on reflection, that another supposition is possible ; 
and seeing this, they have taken up the scriptural argument anew, 
unshackled by the necessity of reading the word of God (as before) in 
accordance with what they considered the only admissible suppositions. 
They now see clearly, that the whole tenor of the word of God is 



32 LETTERS TO THE 

against the theory of Hopkins — that the distinctions invented to support 
it are unfounded in truth." On this passage I remark, 

1. I think Dr Goodrich confounds supposition and theory, in a man- 
ner embarrassing to the reader. Dr. Hopkins' scheme is not a bare 
supposition, in the sense in which the scheme of Dr. Goodrich is. Dr. 
Hopkins' scheme is positive — he endeavored to build something and to 
abide by it. The scheme of the New Haven Professors, according to 
Dr. Goodrich, builds nothing and is designed to build nothing. Why 
then put the two schemes into the same class ? This evidently does 
Hopkins' scheme an injury, though such may not be its design. 

2. The quotation, on which I am remarking, evidently shows, if I 
can understand it, that Dr. Goodrich considers the adoption of some 
theory or supposition essential, as the basis of interpreting the scrip- 
tures. He speaks of Dr. Beecher and the others named, " who had felt 
themselves shut up by the necessity of the case, to the adoption of the 
old theory," by which I conclude he means Hopkins'. How these 
gentlemen were shut up till relieved by Dr. Taylor's barely possible 
supposition. Is it so, that these gentlemen did not see that the whole 
tenor of the word of God was against Hopkins' scheme, till Dr. Tay- 
lor's possible supposition enlightened them ? Is the Christian world 
dependent upon the suppostions of men to know how to explain the 
Bible ? The whole tenor of the word of God against Hopkins' scheme, 
and yet the Doctors in divinity unable to find it out, till they meet with 
a possible supposition, which, it seems, must be made the key to unlock 
the scriptures ? If " distinguished divines" must institute a barely 
possible supposition, to ascertain what is the whole tenor of the word of 
God, what will become of the millions on millions, who have not been 
thus highly favored, but who have depended upon the Bible to interpret 
itself, without foreign aid ? I have really thought, the doctrine of Prot- 
estantism demands that we find out the scriptures by the scriptures — 
" comparing spiritual things with spiritual." But we will hear more 
from Dr. Goodrich. 

" If you ask on what theory do they and we now rest, I answer on 
none as affording any positive solution of the great problem in question. 
Some may think there are probabilities in the case, but nothing more. 
All are content to say, ' Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
sight.' " Indeed — this is the very point to which all the truly recon- 
ciled to God come ; and they can come as well without a supposition as 
with it. Yes, and far better ! The notion that we must take out of the 
way the doctrine, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, 
or any other doctrine, before we can say with Christ, " Even so, Father, 
for so it seemeth good in thy sight," does, in my opinion, make a condition 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 33 

as to the terms of submitting to his will ; and therefore I consider all 
the speculations which require, or even suggest, such terms of submis- 
sion, positively dangerous. It seems that some of our great men do not 
know the way to submission to the divine will without a pioneer, and 
this must be something entirely foreign to the scriptures ; something 
which Dr. Taylor has taught them. It is a possible supposition. This 
and this alone prepares them to say, " Even so, Father, for so it seemeth 
good in thy sight."' This wonderful discovery lays the foundation for 
caste. Multitudes of Christians have not had, and multitudes never will 
have, the privilege of understanding submission to God by this hypothet- 
ical route. They must make no condition in their submission. It must 
be entire, however difficult and mysterious many things may seem to 
them. Doubtless they, as well as the learned gentlemen referred to, 
have had their difficulties respecting the origin of sin, — why a holy and 
benevolent God should permit it. But they must live and die without 
any further light than the word of God imparts. But it seems that the 
gentlemen whom Dr. Goodrich has referred to, are a privileged order. 
They need not a submission so entire. They can make a condition with 
the Almighty. They can suppose that he would have prevented all sin, 
if he could possibly have done it, and yet have a moral system. To 
gratify his benevolence, he must have a moral system. And now since 
he has a moral system, and has done all he can to prevent sin. but cannot 
succeed, these learned gentlemen can say with regard to the existence 
of sin, "Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight!" If this 
is not making terms of capitulation to the Almighty, I know not what is ; 
and it appears to me to be contrary to the letter and spirit of the bible, 
and consequently to the best religious instructions in revivals of religion. 
Who, that carefully reads his bible, does not perceive that it requires ab- 
solute submission to the divine will, without our proposing terms, or 
something to rest upon, aside from, or above, the control of God ? It 
seems that the Lord Jesus Christ had no such resting place aside from 
the mere choice of God, without any fatality beyond his control. Mark, 
14 ; 36. — " And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee ; 
take this cup from me : nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou 
wilt." Here the Saviour must submit, without admitting the possible 
supposition, that his Father was so restricted, as that he could not re- 
move the cup, had he been disposed. " Abba, Father, all things are pos- 
sible with thee." In this most extraordinary case, the Saviour makes 
no conditions in his submission — he rests all upon the divine will — he 
leaves all there. This example of Christ is alone sufficient to put to 
everlasting silence the clamor of man's wisdom on this point. With 
this perfect example of unconditional submission to God, how dare any 



34 



LETTERS TO THE 



interpose a supposition to take away the force of the doctrine of submis- 
sion, and refuse to rest on the will of God, irrespective of something out 
of himself, which obliges him to will as he does 1 

It is of vast importance, that we look at the cause of the controversy 
which is perpetually going on between God and his enemies. The 
great difficulty with them as appears by the convicted sinner is, they 
will not surrender themselves unconditionally to God. They will read- 
ily give up many things, but not every thing. They are ready to make 
some sacrifice, but at the same time wish to keep something back. Says 
the Saviour, Luke 14; 33, — " Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh 
not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." Among other things we 
must forsake for Christ, one is, our own wisdom, whenever it comes in 
contact with the bible. Hence it appears to me, that that pretended sub- 
mission to God in relation to the existence of sin, which must be on the 
supposition that he could not prevent it, is in truth no submission. It 
gives countenance to a conditional submission in relation to any other 
point, where we may wish to propose terms with our Maker. It is a 
spurious submission, which a million might have, and every one lose his 
soul. Here I apprehend is one of the most exceptionable and dangerous 
points in modern speculations on theology. It contains the germ of a 
spurious reconciliation to God ; of course, of spurious revivals of relig- 
ion, and of a spurious religion itself. It allows the sinner to keep back 
the very thing, which of all others he ought to give up, that is, the hard- 
est thing to yield. On the strength of such submission, a certain church 
member, as I have seen in print, concluded he would not be a Universal- 
ist. Ah ! Universalists will become orthodox, and infidels and skeptics 
will become believers on their own terms, — on men's terms. But it is 
quite a different thing to come to God's terms. This makes true religion, 
and nothing else will. 

Alas ! Are those Christians in this country, who desire that their 
" faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God," 
aware, that there has been a formidable confederacy to barter the only 
true submission to God, for a hypothetical, and of course a conditional 
submission, which, according to Dr. Goodrich, was introduced by Dr. 
Taylor 1 " Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon ; 
lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the un- 
circumcised triumph." 

We of the Old School want none of Dr. Taylor's recipes for submit- 
ting to God, because sin exists, however highly they may be recom- 
mended by " many distinguished divines, like Dr. Beecher, Dr. Porter, 
Dr. Hawes, Dr. Skinner, of New York, &c." The bible answers all 
our purpose — of course we do not wish to join a class which is further 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



35 



advanced in " theological science," than that book can teach. We have 
no longing to exchange God's truth for suppositions. For, 

1. Who does not know, that the famous " supposition" is wholly unau- 
thorized by the word of God ? Consequently we are bound to reject it. 

2. This supposition, as it is used by the theological Professors at Yale 
College, gives a skeptical tinge to religion generally. 

3. When this supposition is held by those who subscribe to an ortho- 
dox creed, it is an expression of insincerity and deception, whether it be 
so designed or not. 

4. This supposition attacks the divine independence, which is as abun- 
dantly proved by the scriptures as any other attribute of Jehovah, or as 
any other truth whatever. 

5. If we strip Jehovah of all his godlike venerableness, and put him 
down on a level with a common neighbor, " the supposition" does not 
practice toward him the Saviour's rule of reciprocity ; " All things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them." 
It throws out insinuations against him, which it dares not affirm. This 
we all abhor when practised toward ourselves. 

6. It gives countenance to every infamous backbiter who walks the 
streets, provided he is careful not to " affirm." In short, it is fraught 
with nothing hut mischief, and has not, in my opinion, done any thing hut 
mischief, since it commenced its career. And it never will be capable of 
doing any thing but mischief, till it is put among the things that were. 

In my sixth Letter I showed, I believe clearly, that ecclesiastical coun- 
cils, and civil courts, are wont to make a distinction between a case 
which has no doubt attached to it, and one that has. Of what amazing 
consequence is a doubt in a criminal case ! Often life or death depends 
upon it. In all instances of supposed murder, the judge's charge to the 
jury is, if after all the evidence against the person who is tried for his 
life, there should be a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury in his 
favor, they must not declare him guilty. An appeal is now made to the 
jurists of New England. Gentlemen, you are no doubt acquainted 
with the disagreement among ministers reputed orthodox, which has ex- 
isted for more than twenty years ; and perhaps you may have been told 
that the points of difference are very small, and of course they ought 
not to produce contention. But is it not proper that those ministers who 
think otherwise, and who deeply deplore the cause of our troubles, 
should be heard ? There are many ministers of the gospel, and pastors 
of churches, who entered upon the responsible work with the full con- 
viction, that what is contained in the bible should be the whole basis and 
limits of Christian theology ; that " every thought should be brought into 
captivity to the obedience of Christ." They feel themselves bound as 



36 LETTERS TO THE 

with the solemnity of an oath, to deal in what they believe to be God's 
positive truth, in opposition to all hypothetical speculations. They be- 
lieve, that the welfare of Zion in general, and the salvation of their hear- 
ers in particular, are deeply concerned in these things. How, then, 
must they feel, to know that strenuous efforts are made to have it appear, 
that a supposition, which always implies doubt, may be used on a fun- 
damental doctrine of religion, without effecting a creed ? They feel dis- 
tressed at such efforts, when they find so much depends upon a doubt. 
Is it their duty to sit down quietly, and see their brethren introduce sup- 
positions designed to give form and shape to their theological systems, 
without any rule but their own fancies, when to adopt them, how to ap- 
ply them, and how much or how little to depend upon them ? Neither 
can we forget, that in the case of a supposed murder, the judge always 
requires the doubt, if there be any, to be applied in favor of the crimi- 
nal ; but our hypothetical theologians bring their doubt to bear against 
the ability of their Maker, and against a multitude of as plain declara- 
tions as can be found in the bible. In our opinion a doubt means some- 
thing in religion as well as in law. 



LETTER IX. 

JOB, 32 ; 18. — " The spirit within me constraineth me." 

So many strange things occur in the course of a man's life, that some 
think it is best to learn never to be surprised at what takes place. In a 
communication of the Theological Professors at New Haven to the Trus- 
tees of the Theological Institute of Connecticut, in the } ;r ear 1835, we 
have this sentence : " We have never affirmed that God could not ex- 
clude sin from a moral universe." The scheme, that God may not have 
been able to prevent sin was publicly announced by Dr. Taylor in his 
"Conscio ad clerum," in the year 1828. Now admitting, that the Profes- 
sors through all they wrote to vindicate their peculiar views, during 
seven years, did not affirm that God could not have prevented sin, I am 
unable to perceive the propriety of this caution. They certainly labored 
much to convince all their readers that God could not prevent sin. Ad- 
mitting they were sincere in what they wrote, it is a wonder indeed, that 
they never affirmed, and that they did not most strenuously affirm, that 
God is unable to prevent sin. It seems to me it would be their glory to 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 37 

affirm it, if they felt as their writings indicate ; and that a refusal to 
affirm it would be the last thing in their hearts. In the Christian Spec- 
tator for 1832, page 567, they say, "But in our view, it is a question, 
whether it is not essential to the honor of God, to suppose that he has 
done all he could to secure the universal holiness of his accountable 
creatures, and that nevertheless, some, in defiance of it all, would rebel." 
Now if they seriously apprehend that it is essential to the honor of God 
to believe he is unable to prevent sin in a moral universe, how can they 
content themselves to remain in a state of uncertainty ? It must be dis- 
tressing to a conscientious mind to be in doubt on a subject of so great 
importance, even for a day. If a man fears that any part of his creed 
is dishonorable to God, he ought to give it up till further light ; for he 
cannot be made to believe that God is dishonored both ways. Indeed, 
one might think, that what is contained in the above quotation is suffi- 
cient to indicate the belief of those who wrote it, or approved ft in oth- 
ers. What need of a supposition on the point ? 

We will now notice another sentence on this subject. "But show us 
a God, who, able to advance the holiness of a universe forever, and to 
protect it from all the inroads of sin, does nevertheless, in the choice of 
his heart respecting a, whole universe, actually reject such protection, and 
prefer to gratify his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense of the 
sin and misery of one or many of his subjects ; and we shall see him 
purposely leading off the holy into sin, and preferring their rebellion to 
obedience in every instance it occurs ; and in all his conduct towards 
sinners from first to last, we shall never see any wisdom, any goodness, 
any holiness, any justice, any mercy, but the mere caprice that starts 
aside from all, simply to make an exhibition which throws eternal horror 
into all our hearts !" — Ch. Spec. 1832, p. 644. And yet the Professors 
would never affirm but such is the very God of the universe ! Such effu- 
sions are enough to make one's blood curdle in his veins ! They will 
not affirm but our God so conducts " towards sinners from first to last," 
that " we shall never see any wisdom, any goodness, any holiness, any 
justice, any mercy," in him ! Let the impenitent sinner fairly get hold 
of the Professor's skepticism, and he would deem it ridiculous to hear 
them exhort him to believe, and love, and obey such a God ; to choose 
a God for our everlasting portion, in whom we have serious doubts 
whether we can " see any wisdom, any goodness, any holiness, any jus- 
tice, any mercy !" 

I will now introduce the reader to a sentiment of the Professors, so 
absurd, that common absurdities dwindle into insignificance. " It is 
admitted, that what men have done to impair the blessedness of God by 
sin, has not failed of its results in the actual diminution of his blessed- 



LETTERS TO THE 



ness, compared with what it had been, had they obeyed his perfect law." 
Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. 5. p. 693. 

The first thing which strikes the mind on reading these words, is, the 
mutability of Jehovah. If I had not understood that the writer of the 
foregoing sentence was a Doctor of Divinity, I should doubt whether he 
understood the proper use of terms. According to what he says, God 
was once happier than he is now. With him, then, there is variable- 
ness, and not only a shadow of turning, but a real turning ! Also this 
sentiment is against the fore-knowledge of God, or his wisdom. Did 
not God know before he created man, that he would sin 1 If he did not, 
he must have been wofully disappointed. But if he did know before- 
hand, that man would break his holy law, if created, and that such con- 
duct would diminish his blessedness, how does his wisdom appear ? 
This question appears peculiarly forcible, if we consider the following 
doctrine of the Professors. " Of all specific voluntary action, the hap- 
piness of the agent in some form is the ultimate end." No one can 
doubt, that it was specific voluntary action in God to create man. Now 
if he knew all things, he must know that man would sin if created ; and 
of course, according to the Professors, God, though a moral agent, could 
not make his own happiness the ultimate object, for it seems to have 
been greatly diminished by man's sins. What consistency ! If this 
does not suit, let the Professors or their advocates take the other alter- 
native. Let them say if they please, that God did know that men would 
sin, if created ; but he would create them, and has become a perpetual 
sufferer for so doing. Yes ; and if sin has diminished his blessedness, 
the amazing degree of it committed in the universe, must make God infi- 
nitely wretched ! Thus the scheme makes him very ignorant, or very 
unwise, or probably both. This is plain truth ; and I think it is impor- 
tant to dwell upon it, and hold it up, that an injured community may see 
the length and the breadth of some of those schemes that tickle the care- 
less and superficial, that unsettle the mind in relation to divine truth, 
and prepare it for the nameless absurdities of error and skepticism. It 
is proper, that such speculations should be held up, till curiosity shall 
be satisfied with this world of wonders, this matchless nonsense. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 39 



LETTER X. 

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 



JOB, 36 ; 2. — "Suffer me a little, and i will show thee that i have yet to speak on 

god's behalf." 



The reader will notice, that in the first two quotations from the Pro- 
fessors in my last letter, the form of a supposition is kept up by them, 
though as it seems to me, at the expense of Jehovah's character. In 
the last quotation, the form of a supposition is dropped, though the sen- 
timents seem to stand wholly on the strength of a supposition. To be 
consistent, therefore, the Professors ought to have said, " It is admitted, 
[as a barely possible supposition, and what we never affirm to be true,] 
that what men have done to impair the blessedness of God by sin, has 
not failed of its results in the actual diminution of his blessedness, com- 
pared with what it had been, had they obeyed his perfect law." 

We come now to the leading deception of the Professors' speculations — 
they make their premises hypothetical, and their conclusions positive. 
They begin by saying it may possibly be so ; and then seem to for- 
get themselves, and make the most unqualified assertions to be the 
result of what they would have us believe they barely suppose. The 
last quotation is one instance among others we shall yet notice. Here 
the writer is so positive that Jehovah could not prevent sin in a moral 
universe, that without the least qualification, he makes assertions, which 
rudely meddle with God's immutability, with his prescience and wis- 
dom. He seems to have turned his great hypothesis into a positive the- 
ory, as though it were entirely settled in his mind, that sin has produced 
a disastrous change in God — that he is not that blessed being now, and 
of course never will be, that he was before sin entered the world. And 
yet the writer and all his associates are prompt in approving and rec- 
ommending the Westminster Catechism, and will take it amiss to be 
thought behind their brethren in lauding that work. Yea, they will 
talk as strong in favor of old Puritan Orthodoxy, as though they never 
did anything in their lives but establish it. 

The reader must now prepare to soar far above the " eagle's flight," 
and outstrip transcendentalism itself. " The case is so plain — it is so 
easy to imagine a better world or a better universe than the present, 



40 LETTERS TO THE 

that the mind can never rest in the assurance that its author is benevo- 
lent, without supposing that he is restricted in the production of happi- 
ness, by some impossibility involving a contradiction. Here we must 
rest, or deny the benevolence of an infinite creator." 

What a mind this writer must have had to comprehend Jehovah and 
his works at a glance, and so readily decide, beyond all doubt, that he 
must be wanting either in benevolence or ability, inasmuch as he has 
not made a better world and a better universe ! " The case is so plain ;" 
yet he dares not affirm, that God is unable to exclude sin from a moral 
universe — he dares not affirm God's inability. He must then deny his 
benevolence — " The case is so plain." Reader : fancy to yourself the 
writer of such speculations teaching his children the Westminster Cate- 
chism. He asks : What is God ? The child answers : " God is a 
Spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holi- 
ness, justice, goodness and truth." Consider farther, that after the 
child has finished his lesson, and been exhorted never to forget such 
just views of God, he should take up the Christian Spectator for 1832, 
and open to page 570, and read thus : " The case is so plain — it is so 
easy to imagine a better world, or a better universe than the present, 
that the mind can never rest in the assurance that its author is benevo- 
lent, without supposing that he is restricted in the production of happi- 
ness, by some impossibility involving a contradiction. Here we must 
rest, or deny the benevolence of an infinite Creator." 

If children, who are taught such extravagant and wild incoherences, 
are neither dunces nor atheists, it cannot be owing to their instructions. 
The man, who is capable of writing or relishing such views of God, 
ought to take advice from Pope : 

"Go, teach eternal wisdom how to rule : 
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool." 

Whoever the writer may be ; however learned and wise he may be 
in the estimation of his fellow men, he will go down to his grave unable 
to answer questions concerning the least atom that floats in the sun- 
beams. Yet he feels competent to decide concerning the ways of the 
" infinite Creator," " who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in 
working." He seems " to know all about God," as a youth once said, 
after he had been to "the world of wonders." 

The writer of these strictures has known by experience, what a 
Puritanic education is, however poorly he may have profited by it. At 
home he was taught the Westminster Catechism. At the house of God, 
he heard a teacher of the Bible, (not philosophy,) and he is confident 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 41 

that such Puritanism has tendencies exactly the reverse of the essence 
of New Haven divinity. In his religious training, the greatest care 
was used to make Jehovah appear venerable. Hence the modern spec- 
ulations, such as we are noticing, will be revolting and shocking, so 
long as the last trace of his education shall linger in his memory. 
Neither can he take the least satisfaction in the attempts, which, he 
finds, are making, to connect New Divinity with the Puritan doctrine 
concerning God. What resemblance is there ? None. I must think, 
that if such miserable, degrading views of the great King of heaven 
had first issued from an infidel convention, they would be considered in 
keeping with mockers ; and I can conceive of nothing but a human 
authority which awes so many into silence, that prevents the pious all 
over the country from coming out and boldly vindicating the scriptural 
character of God. I did think till within twenty years, that there was 
more independence among the ministers of New England. I would 
not make this suggestion, if I knew how it could honestly be avoided. 
If the true character of God is not worth standing up boldly for, what 
is ? And if the paragraph under review, so unlike the Puritanic doc- 
trine of Jehovah, is indeed the Bible truth on this fundamental point of 
all religion let its advocates come forward and plead for it. But let not 
those who really believe in the God our fathers worshiped, be awed 
into silence. If there is a professed teacher of our holy religion, who 
sees no essential difference between the God described in the West- 
minster Catechism, and the one described by the paragraph recently 
quoted, I think it would be well for religion, if he should seek some 
other profession. 

Note. — Dr. Goodrich informs me, that he was not the writer of that paragraph, 
as I had thought ; but he says not a word against the sentiments contained in it. 
Accordingly, we have a right to believe he adopts them. 



6 



42 LETTERS TO THE 



LETTER XI. 

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
JOB, 27; 5. — "God forbid that i should justify you." 

We have already considered in part how much the Theological 
Professors at New Haven depend upon a supposition, to make out a 
system of theology, which after all they dare not affirm to be anything 
more than a possible supposition — that on the strength 'of it, they 
reason and form positive conclusions, as though it must be true — that 
such a procedure carries along with it a positive deception, and there- 
fore cannot be justified, by whomsoever it may be practiced. I now 
introduce an extraordinary paragraph of this description. The reader 
will bear in mind, that the writer of said paragraph is careful to say he 
never affirms that God is unable to prevent sin in a moral universe. 
Yet he declares, that " this theory, if carried out into its legitimate 
consequences, leads to Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism. 
Dr. Tyler maintains that God can secure the holiness and happiness 
of all his moral creatures." This last sentence seems to contain 
astonishment in the writer, that Dr. Tyler should dare believe what 
the real believers in the Westminster Catechism never denied — that 
God could have prevented sin. 

But continues our author : " It follows, therefore, that God will 
secure the holiness and happiness of all his moral creatures. Of 
course, all men will be saved." [Ah, the writer dares not affirm that 
it will not be so !] " But this is not all. According to this scheme, the 
divine authority of the Bible is subverted. This book confessedly 
abounds in the most unqualified declarations of the future endless 
misery of multitudes of the human race. As an omnipotent being 
he can, according to Dr. Tyler, prevent such a result. As a benev- 
olent being, he must be disposed to prevent it. But according to Dr. 
Tyler, the scriptures clearly teach that God will not secure the perfect 
holiness of his moral creation, when he can secure it. How then can 
a book, which belies every essential attribute of a perfect God, pretend 
to claim his authority ?" 

Reader, the author of what I am quoting is the Rev. Nathaniel 
Taylor, D. D., of New Haven, and he was one of the four Professors, 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 43 

who declared to the public over their own signatures, in the year 1835, 
that they never affirmed that God is unable to prevent sin in a moral 
universe. Now the whole question between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler 
in these quotations related to the single point, whether God is, or is not, 
able to prevent sin in a moral universe. Dr. Tyler took the common 
and only Calvinistic ground, that God is able ; and in so doing Dr. 
Taylor heaps the most horrible consequences upon his belief; and yet 
Dr. Taylor will not affirm that God is unable to prevent sin ; and he of 
course will not affirm that his own scheme is not attended with all the 
revolting objections he charges upon Dr. Tyler's ! He will not affirm 
that his own scheme does not lead to Universalism, to Infidelity, and to 
Atheism. He is asked the same question which he asked Dr. Tyler: 
" How then can a book which belies every essential attribute of a per- 
fect God, pretend to claim his authority ?" 

But duty requires that the extraordinary fruits of Dr. Taylor's pen 
should be further noticed. He says : " Apply now the principles of 
Dr. Tyler in another form, and Atheism is the consequence. Dr. 
Tyler maintains, that God can prevent all evil throughout his cre- 
ation. The argument, then, for Atheism, furnished by this theory, 
may be thus stated. If there were a God, that is, a being of infinite 
power and goodness, he could prevent, and would be disposed, and 
therefore would in fact, prevent all evil throughout his creation. But 
evil exists. Therefore, there is not a being of infinite power and good- 
ness — there is no God. We admit the fact that the foreo-oinD- reason- 
ing is that of the Universalist, the Infidel and the Atheist. But we ask, 
who furnishes and sustains the premises ; and what conclusions, when 
the premises are admitted, are more unanswerable ?" Dr. Taylor is 
told, that according to his own principles, he furnishes and sustains the 
premises, so far as he is in doubt, as he evidently is, whether God is 
able to prevent sin. As he says he never has affirmed thai God is 
unable to prevent sin, he certainly shows us, that he does not know but 
it is true, that God is able, after all to prevent it ; and therefore he will 
not positively deny a "theory," which he says "leads to Universalism, 
to Infidelity and to Atheism." It is proper, therefore, that Dr. Taylor 
should understand, that unless he takes back what is here quoted from 
his writings, he must be considered unsettled in his belief in any reli- 
gion. On what ground are any authorized to affirm that he believes in 
any religion whatever ? 

Dr. Taylor goes on : " We cannot but say what we believe in the 
integrity of our heart, that supralapsarian Calvinists furnish the grand 
principle on which these conclusions rest ; and combining their powers 
of argument in its defence, with all their means of influencing the 



44 LETTERS TO THE 

faith of others, give to it, and to the conclusions founded on it, a 
delusive and fearful infallibility in the minds of thousands." Now Dr. 
Taylor will not say but he is himself a supralapsarian Calvinist — one 
who helps furnish the grand principle on which these conclusions rest, 
and who gives to it, and to the conclusions founded on it, a delusive 
and fearful infallibility, in the minds of the thousands, whom as a pro- 
fessed preacher of the gospel and teacher of theology he is endeavoring 
to influence. If a person, so undecided on these points, is a safe guide 
for our pious youth, who are soon to become the ministers of Jesus 
Christ, and to carry his gospel over the world, then I frankly acknowl. 
edge, that I can discern no important difference between faith and 
skepticism — between Calvinism and Atheism. A teacher of theology 
unsettled on these points ! Look at it. But Dr. Taylor proceeds : 
" The principle is, that An Omnipotent God, by the mere dint of 

POWER, CAN SECURE THE UNIVERSAL HOLINESS AND HAPPINESS OF HIS 

moral creatures." And what but the dint of power will secure the 
universal holiness and happiness of God's moral creatures ? 2 Peter, 
1 ; 3. — " According as his divine power hath given unto us all things 
that pertain unto life and godliness." O philosophy, how dost thou 
appear beside the word of God ! Dr. Taylor adds : " We cannot but 
say, that in our honest belief, the advocates of this principle greatly, 
but inconsiderately, contribute to the most destructive errors." In- 
deed ! And are those innocent who will not " affirm" that this " prin- 
ciple" is erroneous ? Is there no fearful responsibility resting upon 
those, who condemn others for contributing " to the most destructive 
errors," but will not affirm that their belief is any better — who will not 
affirm that they are not contributing " to the most destructive errors ?" 
The last sentence I shall quote from an article which is a moral 
curiosity, is this : " Sure we are, that a very limited acquaintance 
with facts would show, that the principle advocated by Dr. Tyler and 
others is the very same, which in the hands of Voltaire and other ene- 
mies of the gospel has spread Infidelity and Atheism to such a fearful 
extent throughout Europe, and is in fact the basis of all that latitudina- 
rianism which rejects Christianity and calmly reposes on false and unde- 
fined notions of the goodness and power of God." Christian Spectator 
for September, 1832, pp. 481—483. This I take to be Dr. Taylor's 
master-piece. He never will be able to bring a higher charge against 
Dr. Tyler and others, including all the real Calvinists in Christendom, 
the Edwardses, Hopkins, Bellamy, Strong, Smalley, Dwight, Emmons, 
Payson, &c, &c, &c. It seems that men of this stamp have been the 
supple tools of such men as Voltaire and the host of Atheists, whose 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



45 



infernal doings introduced the French Revolution, with all its abomina- 
tions and horrors ! How venerable must the writer of the foregoing 
paragraph appear in raking up the ashes of the multitudes of our Puri- 
tan ancestors, and in passing a sentence of accusation against them. 
Among these accusations is that " latitudinarianism, which rejects 
Christianity, and calmly reposes on false and undefined notions of the 
goodness and power of God." Does Dr. Taylor think he can make all 
believe, that there ever was a scheme, which has so undefined notions 
of the goodness and power of God, as that which he has presented for 
the consideration of the public 1 A scheme which ranges from a bare- 
ly possible supposition to the most important belief on a subject — a 
belief so essential, that if you do not adopt it, you are in the danger of 
becoming a Universalist, an Infidel, an Atheist ? A scheme, in the 
mazes of which, one may so conceal himself as to defy all knowledge 
short of the perfect knowledge of the hearts of others, to ascertain what 
a man means by what he says. This scheme is so accommodating, 
that in conformity to it, we may make an assertion, and mean nothing 
but a possible supposition, or, what we positively believe, according to 
circumstances. If we find ourselves in danger of being entrapped, we 
can mean nothing but a supposition, which is not to be regarded as 
serious belief. But if we have so much self-confidence, as to believe 
that we can argue down, or frighten down, or laugh down, or trifle 
down an opponent, we can then swell the supposition into the most 
essential truth, and exhaust all our eloquence (be it more or less) to 
point out the abominable, shocking, dreadful, horrible, thrice horrible 
consequences of doubting it. I am drawing no fancy picture. Let 
any candid man read the writings of the Professors on the subject and 
tell me if my description comes up to the reality. 

Not long after the article from which the last extracts are taken, was 
published, rumor said, that a competent gentleman told the author of the 
article, that if he and his associates would not put a stop to their specu- 
lations, they would ruin the college. There is sufficient internal evi- 
dence of the high probability, at least, that this story is true ; for, in the 
first place, it shows us how to account for another article from the pen 
of Dr. Taylor, in which he pretends to have made the discovery that he 
and Dr. Tyler were perfectly agreed. Yes ; after attempting to horrify 
the public mind with the most dangerous doctrines of Dr. Tyler, who by 
the way, had given to the public a fair specimen of New England Or- 
thodoxy ; after exhausting all his skill to revolutionize the scriptural 
theology of our fathers, by a non-committal supposition, without the an- 
ticipated success, and with no small danger of his reputation, he pro- 
claims to the world that this heretical Dr. Tyler and himself are per- 



46 



LETTERS TO THE 



fectly agreed ! It must have been no small occasion, which could force 
such a man as Dr. Taylor to take this position. Without such a rumor 
as I have noticed, it would be very natural to conclude that something 
was the matter ; and though the course of Dr. Taylor seems strange 
enough still, yet to me it would have seemed stranger, if he had declared 
himself at agreement with Dr, Tyler without any definite cause. 

But in the next place, it would have been very extraordinary if no 
one had approached the Professors in the manner already stated, and 
frankly rebuked them for the pernicious course they were pursuing. 
And it is lamentable that more had not dealt faithfully with them. I 
could not have believed without the aid of stubborn facts, that so many 
able, discriminating ministers in this state and elsewhere, would have 
remained silent, and shown a disposition to stand aloof in a case of duty 
so plain. Is not every minister of the gospel bound by his public con- 
secration to his holy work, to act with independence ? Is he not bound 
to set his face against all skeptical indifference to fundamental truths ? 
Is he not bound to acquire a sufficient knowledge of the word of God to 
detect philosophy and vain deceit, in whomsoever it may be found, and 
however ingeniously it may be interspersed and interwoven with truth ? 
It is taken for granted by the great mass of people, that he is capable 
of teaching them in all the great truths of divine revelation, and of vin- 
dicating them against the arts of sophistry, and the subtleties of the cun- 
ning. It is taken for granted, that he has independence enough to think 
for himself, and boldness enough to declare what he thinks, and con- 
science enough to fear to withhold what he believes. It wounds the feel- 
ings of humble confiding Christians, to be under the necessity of sus- 
pecting, that their ministers, whose authority they believe ought to be 
as high as any other human authority, are the mere proselytes to some 
erratic Rabbi. They want to have their religious teachers, Bible men 
rather than philosophers. They desire to have them bring their knowl- 
edge from the pure fountain of divine truth, rather than from that wis- 
dom of the world which is foolishness with God. 

If the Professors were indeed told, that to continue their speculations 
would ruin the college, it is just such language as might be expected to 
come from the lips of a discerning, judicious man. As dear as is the 
venerable Yale to the sons of New England, she cannot withstand many 
more shocks, such as she has already received, without being given up 
to irrecoverable degradation, by at least one part of the religious com- 
munity. 

About the time that New Divinity was in the full tide of experiment, 
Dr. Fisk, President of the Methodist University ofMiddletown, Conn., a 
professed Arminian, published a sermon against the Calvinistic view of 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 47 

the Divine decrees. It seemed suitable that Dr. Fitch, a Professor of 
Divinity in old Calvinistic Yale, should reply to this sermon. He at- 
tempted it ; but to the deep regret and mortification of many of his min- 
isterial brethren, and to the astonishment of President Fisk, he came out 
on the Arminian side. So clear was it in the mind of President Fisk 
that Professor Fitch was essentially with him, that he reproved him for 
keeping himself so much in disguise. He said, " if it is safer to attack 
Calvinism in this indirect way, I will not object. But I cannot see that 
it would be safer. An open bold front always ends best. As I under- 
stand the reviewer, (Dr. Fitch,) from the days of John Calvin down to 
the present hour, there is on this point, (' predestinate — fore-ordain — de- 
cree,') between the great body of Calvinists and himself, almost no like- 
ness except in the use of words. Theirs is one doctrine, his another. 
Why then does he hail from that party and hoist their signals ; and then, 
after seeming to get the victory by espousing the very cause of the as- 
sailed, encourage the Calvinists to triumph, as if their cause had been 
successful ?" (See Dr. Griffin on Divine Efficiency, pp. 28, 29. 

Professor Fitch has held the Divinity chair in the academical depart- 
ment, ever since the above named correspondence with President Fisk ; 
and has all the while been moulding the minds of the numerous students, 
as their pastor. Our excellent young men come to this college, annually, 
from all parts of the country, and return in due time, carrying the seeds 
of what President Fisk thought was Arminianism. Having received 
their first lessons at college, many of those young men, who turn their 
attention to the ministry, enter the theological department, and are ini- 
tiated into all the peculiarities of Dr. Taylor's philosophy of religion ; 
in other words, into a hypothetical Theology, which he teaches in fel- 
lowship with Professor Fitch. 

Has not Dr. Fitch, as the Professor of Divinity in this venerable insti- 
tution, manifestly betrayed it ? I think I cannot mistake in saying, that 
Yale College was set up by our Puritan ancestors, who were real Cal- 
vinists, and who of course designed, that its theology should be real Cal- 
vinism. The college came into existence but a few years before the 
Saybrook Confession was written, which was adopted as the sincere be- 
lief of the ministers and churches of Connecticut. The sentiments, there- 
fore, of the founders of the college have ever been well known ; and the 
same can be said of those who have managed its interests, till the death 
of Dr. Dwight, who was Professor of Divinity, as well as President. Dr. 
Fitch succeeded him in the department of theology, and in my opinion, 
has done as much as any man could do in this very favorable situation 
to revolutionize the college. And if the sentiments of the Professor of 
Divinity in a college are an index of its religious belief, then Yale Col- 



48 



LETTERS TO THE 



lege is as completely revolutionized as ever Cambridge College was. I 
do not say, that it has become Unitarian like Cambridge ; but it has be- 
come something different from that Calvinism which was the glory of its 
founders. 

Connecticut has been long and extensively famed as a land of the Pu- 
ritans, and the land of steady habits; and no fourth of July, or annual 
Thanksgiving passes, and probably no Sabbath, without some public ex- 
pression of gratification, that we can take the places of such worthy peo- 
ple as first organized and composed our churches, established our eccle- 
siastical polity, and gave us such a summary of doctrine from the scrip- 
tures for the Confession of Faith. How ready every thing has been 
made to our hands by these worthy fathers, who were so firmly estab- 
lished in the faith ! Who, then, can account for this tameness under the 
theological change in Yale College ? To one, who had heard much of 
old Connecticut, before his " feet ever pressed its soil," and who has seen 
and enjoyed much in it since, such acquiescence is totally unaccounta- 
ble. Does it fairly represent the spirit of those who were said to be so 
jealous for God's truth, and so engaged to make it known, at the com- 
mencement of the last century ? Their sentiments gave a name to the 
college. It was known as a Calvinistic Institution by both friends and 
foes, without a dissenting voice, from the time it was organized, till its 
present Divinity Professor came into office. But what is it now ? One 
says its theology is Pelagian ; and another that it is Arminian ; and 
many do not pretend to know what it is. Now does not every one be- 
lieve, that there was no ground for mere conjecture or ignorance on this 
subject, in the days of the fathers ? They were called Calvinists, be- 
cause they believed, and taught, and established, a Confession for Yale 
College, according to the real, obvious import of such passages of scrip- 
ture as the following : " I the Lord, the first and the last ; I am he." 
" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," "the first and 
the last." " The Lord hath made all things for himself." " For thou 
hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." 
" I form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace and create evil ; 
I the Lord do all these things." " But our God is in the heavens ; he 
hath done whatsoever he pleased." " And he doeth according to his 
will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth ; and 
none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what doest thou ?" " The 
counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all gen- 
erations." " According to the purpose of him who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will." 

We will now turn our attention to the teachings of the successor of 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 49 

Dr. Dwight in the divinity chair in Yale College. He says, " Human 
rebellion and wickedness oppose themselves to a work of grace in our 
world, and hindrances to salvation, which the God of grace cannot wholly 
overcome." (See Dr. Griffin on Divine Efficiency, p. 18.) Much more 
might be quoted from the writings of Dr. Fitch, to show the inability of 
God in relation to what he would do if he could. But this is enough. 
It teaches a doctrine which is radically opposed to that Calvinism, to 
which the founders of Yale College adhered in life and in death. Now, 
if Dr. Fitch, or any one who reads these pages, can find a passage of 
scripture, between the first verse in Genesis, and the last in Revelations, 
which teaches the doctrine of Jehovah's inability, as Dr. Fitch teaches it, 

" And I consent you take it for your text, 
Your only one till sides and benches fail." 

We are here taught in plain language that God is not able to prevent 
sin. The God of grace cannot wholly overcome human rebellion and wick_ 
edness. How this doctrine looks beside those passages in the scriptures 
which have just been quoted, and a multitude of others, which the com- 
mon reader of the bible cannot fail in noticing. I feel confident, let who 
will oppose, that such anti-scriptural boldness ought to be met by equal 
boldness in defence of God's truth. But there is another expression of 
boldness, which ought not to be passed over in silence. After Dr. Fitch 
had published what T have now quoted, with much more of the same im- 
port — indeed, after he had written and published much to show Jehovah's 
inability to prevent sin, he declared over his own signature in conjunc- 
tion with his colleagues, " We have never affirmed that God could not 
exclude sin from a moral universe." It was no affirmation, then, for 
Dr. Fitch to say that " Human rebellion and wickedness oppose them- 
selves to a work of grace in our world, and hindrances to salvation which 
the God of grace cannot wholly overcome /" O charity, what dost thou 
say to these things ! Are not such treachery and untruthfulness, if 
passed over, enough to ruin a college ? If the special guardians of that 
once venerable institution will suffer its dignity and reputation to be thus 
let down, I cannot help it. But I would not that the orthodoxy of Yale 
College should evaporate without the public expression of sympathy, 
which has often been made in behalf of Harvard. When the glory de- 
parted from that college, there were many to bemoan its fall. But who 
is there to take up a lamentation for the sad change which has come 
upon that noble institution, which has been the boast of Connecticut for 
ages ? 

7 



50 LETTERS TO THE 

There is an infinite difference between a God, whose counsel stands 
forever, and who does all his pleasure, and a God who finds that human 
rebellion and wickedness so oppose themselves to a work of grace, that 
he cannot overcome them. I cannot conceive of a greater absurdity, 
than for a professed believer in the bible to speak as though he thought 
there were any incompetency in God to do just as he pleases. Has not Dr. 
Fitch subscribed to a confession of faith, which declares that God " is 
infinite in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and 
truth"? How comes it to pass, then, that he knows so much about infi- 
nite, what is unlimited, boundless, as to make infinite goodness superior 
to infinite power ? It seems, according to his view, that God would over- 
come human rebellion and wickedness if he could. Here the doctrine 
of Jehovah's incompetency is clearly brought to view. My fixed belief 
is, that if God's attributes are infinite, they are equal : there is perfect 
harmony between them. Therefore if we are not infinite ourselves, it 
is consummate folly in us to pretend to decide that any one of Jehovah's 
infinite attributes is superior to another ; — to pretend that his goodness 
is superior to his power ; that he would be glad to do what he cannot, 
and the like. Such degrading views of our infinite God have no parti- 
cle of Bible religion in them ; and where is the heathen, who would not 
consider his idol insulted, if treated in such a manner ? The boy at 
sea, who was sportive in a terrible storm was asked, " Are you not 
afraid ?" He replied, " No, for father is at the helm." It was the per- 
fect confidence of the perfect competency of his father, which made him 
feel safe ; and unless he had had this confidence, he would have been in 
terror. In like manner, the Christian cannot feel safe in a world of so 
much sin and misery, and where he is assailed with so many tempta- 
tions and dangers, and with trials of every kind, unless he can have 
perfect confidence in the perfect competency of his heavenly Father, 
who is at the helm. Wherever there is the least doubt about the perfect 
gratification of any of Jehovah's desires, there is an unscriptural distrust 
of his perfect ability to do all his pleasure. Why then is there so much 
reasoning which requires the modification of the plain express passages 
of scripture on this subject ? It is an essential and established rule of 
interpreting the bible, always to adopt the obvious sense of a text, unless 
other parts of the bible show a plain necessity for departing from this rule. 
Let us try the passage in Job 23 ; 13. — " And what his soul desireth, 
even that he doeth." Now does the analogy of the scriptures require 
any departure from the most literal sense of this text ? If so, in what 
books, chapters and verses are those passages found, which demand any 
modification ? 

Much is said in this age about modifying texts of scripture, and even 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 51 

the doctrines of scripture. I know of but two ways in which this can be 
done. One is by the scriptures themselves. This is the true and only 
proper way. It is what is required of every one when he reads the 
bible. It is simply "comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Un- 
less we do thus, we need not expect to gain much knowledge by reading 
the bible. As we are all fallible and liable to err, we may make mis- 
takes even in this course. It becomes us, then, to read and compare 
prayerfully ; and without any preconceived schemes, to which we in- 
tend the scriptures must bow. This is the safest course for us ; but 
even then we shall have errors enough. But if we pretend to study the 
scriptures as learners, and all the while try to make them speak our 
language, we abuse them, and their Author, and play the hypocrite. 
This is the other way to modify the scriptures ; and it is doing it by 
human authority, by man's wisdom, by the wisdom of the world which 
comes to naught. It is to set up our wisdom above that of God, and to 
make ourselves the standard instead of the bible. All schemes which 
are contrived on this principle, however much learning and time and 
zeal may have been bestowed upon them : however ingenious they may 
seem, and however many admirers they may have, shed darkness in- 
stead of light upon the word of God, and are therefore far worse than 
useless. If I did not believe thus, I should lose all my confidence in 
the bible. And a sense of duty impels me to add, that there is alarm- 
ing evidence that the speculations of Dr. Fitch and his colleagues, are of 
this character. If they are indeed founded upon the bible, %\ hy did not 
Dr. Goodrich set me right, when in a letter to him I declared them to be 
destitute of the least scriptural authority, which letter, or the principal 
part of it, will be found in the fourteenth letter of this series. Yet these 
speculations must be essential to the divinity of Yale College. 

Let us take another view of that theory which is designed to be the 
great modifier of God's word. It is the power of contrary choice with- 
out any prescribed limits. " Moral agents can do wrong, (and of course 
can do right,) under all possible preventing influence." Then the saint 
can fall from grace in spite of all that God can do to prevent it. There 
is no mistake. Then the impenitent sinner can, with a single leap, be- 
come perfectly holy without divine grace. Then all the inhabitants of 
heaven and hell can change places, and all God's moral creation be an 
everlasting mass of uncertainty and confusion. But no, says the advo- 
cate of New Divinity : " There is a difference between necessity and 
certainty." His meaning must be this. It is necessary that moral 
agents should have all this liberty ; but it is not certain that thev will 
use it. But I say, on the other hand, it is not certain but they will use 
it ; for it is a new Divinity maxim, that "this possibility that free agents 



52 LETTERS TO THE 

will sin remains, (suppose what else you will,) so long as moral agency 
remains, and how can it be proved, that a thing will not be, when, for 
aught that appears, it may be ?" This quotation is from the Christian 
Spectator, the standard work of New Divinity. Its advocates cannot 
prove, therefore, but that moral agents will take all the liberty I have 
suggested. They cannot prove that Christians will not apostatize in 
this world ; and that impenitent sinners will not become holy, not how- 
ever by the power of the Holy Ghost on their hearts ; but that they will 
become holy by the mere dint of free agency. They cannot prove but 
that all the inhabitants of heaven will apostatize, and as a New Divinity 
preacher has been understood to say, " Leave the Almighty without a 
solitary worshiper !" No, they cannot prove but that after the present 
inhabitants shall all go off, those happy regions will be re-peopled by 
those who are now the tenants of the world of woe ! 

But we have arrived yet only at the threshold of this nameless struc- 
ture. However revolting it may be, it seems necessary to look a mo- 
ment in the interior. God is a free moral agent. On this point New 
Divinity people insist. Of course he must have that essential property 
of a moral agent, which, we are confidently told is, that one " can do 
wrong under all possible preventing influence." " This possibility that 
free agents will sin remains, (suppose what else you will,) so long as 
free agency remains, and how can it be proved, that a thing will not be, 
when, for aught that appears, it may be V 

Here then is a plain intimation, that no one can prove but that God 
himself will turn a sinner ! ! ! 

When I first read Dr. Dwight's description of the present life and of 
futurity, as he considered Atheism made them, I thought it was the dark- 
est picture of the universe that could be drawn — (See vol. 1, sermonSd, 
of his Theology.) But ever since I have learned what the New Haven 
speculations are, I have felt, that if they are true, as the case might be, 
they make the prospect far darker still. They present us, as far as we 
can know, with an Almighty sinner, in whose hands we all must forever 
be, and who, for aught we can tell, will make an eternal hell darker and 
deeper for the righteous, than justice demands for the wicked ! 

But it may be said, that the Professors intend no such thing by their 
scheme. Then let them be more cautious how they outrage all relig- 
ious feeling, and even put Atheism itself on the back-ground, by their 
uncalled for speculations. The subject is too serious, too much is invol- 
ved in it, to be treated in a careless, random manner. I can conceive 
of nothing short of a positive abandonment of all religion, more calcula- 
ted to shock a bible-believing community, than such skeptical intima- 
tions as New Divinity puts forth, if fully understood. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 53 



LETTER XII 



JOB 6 ; 28. — " Now, therefore, be content ; look upon me ; for it is evident unto you 

IF I LIB." 

I have heard it asserted, by men of sense, who assumed to understand 
the subject, that after all the Professors had written, it was not incon- 
sistent for them to declare they never affirmed that God is unable to 
prevent sin in a moral universe. I must say, that it is beyond my 
comprehension to perceive on what ground such an assertion can be 
made. 

The reader is requested to take another look at the quotation already 
made in these words : " But in our view it is a question whether it is not 
essential to the honor of God, to suppose that he has done all he could 
to secure the universal holiness of his accountable creatures, and that 
nevertheless, some, in defiance of it all, would rebel." Is there no incon- 
sistency between the suggestion in these words, and not affirming that 
God is unable to prevent sin ? Was it consistent for the Professors, in 
their high, responsible capacity, to leave the honor of God in this doubt- 
ful situation ? If the theme was too high for them, why did they not let 
it alone ? Ps. 131 ; 1. — "Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes 
lofty : neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high 
for me." Was it consistent for the Professors to sow the seeds of skep- 
ticism far and wide, in relation to the honor of God ? To make it doubt- 
ful whether God has any honor ? Does this skeptical world need such 
suggestions and efforts ; and are we to look for them in the teachers of 
our school of the prophets ? 

Is there a consistency between the Professors' refusing to affirm that 
God is unable to prevent sin, and the following sentence ? " But show 
us a God, who, able to advance the holiness of a universe forever, and 
to protect it from all the inroads of sin, does, nevertheless, in the choice 
of his heart respecting a whole universe, actually reject such protection, 
and prefer to gratify his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense 
of the sin and misery of one or any of his subjects ; and we shall see 
him purposely leading off the holy into sin, and preferring their rebellion 
to their obedience in every instance it occurs, and in all this conduct 
towards sinners, from first to last, we shall never see any wisdom, any 



54 



LETTERS TO THE 



goodness, any holiness, any justice, any mercy, but the mere caprice, 
that starts aside from all, simply to make an exhibition, which throws 
eternal horror into all our hearts." This eternal horror, it seems, is 
thrown into all the hearts of the New Haven school, at the thought that 
God can prevent sin ; and yet not one of them dare to deny that he is able 
to prevent it. Is this consistent ? Is there no lack of moral courage ? 
Would such men go to the stake rather than to doubt whether God has any 
wisdom, or goodness, or holiness, or justice, or mercy ? 

Now it is my opinion, that there is a great inconsistency in men's pro- 
fessing to teach positively that God is a being of infinite wisdom, good- 
ness, holiness, justice and mercy, and at the same time, will not affirm 
that the only system is true, which they say can make him so. 

What then shall we think of the consistency of those, who gravely 
hold forth, that God has suffered his blessedness to be diminished by the 
existence of sin, but will not affirm that he is unable to prevent it ? Is 
this consistent ? If you tell me so, then take another case still. Was it 
consistent for the Professors to assert — " The case is so plain — it is so 
easy to imagine a better world and a better universe than the present, 
that the mind can never rest in the assurance that its author is benevo- 
lent, without supposing that he is restricted in the production of happi- 
ness by some impossibility involving a contradiction;" and yet be totally 
unwilling to affirm that God was under any such restriction ? Whoever 
can discern the consistency of the Professors in these things, must, I 
think, have a very uncommon mind. 

I can but believe, that each of the four quotations, to which reference 
is now made, when put by the side of the declaration, " We have never 
•affirmed that God could not exclude sin in a moral universe," is suffi- 
cient by itself to show a gross inconsistency in the writings of the theo- 
logical Professors at New Haven ; and it appears to me, that it is incum- 
bent on some person who denies this, to show in writing how they are 
consistent. The community want proof as well as assertions ; and they 
demand it. They believe it is not honorable for the Professors, or for 
their associates, to leave us in these deep waters, into which we have 
been allured by professions of vast improvements in theological science. 
We implore help : do not pass by on the other side. Our demand for 
help is reasonable ; and if it still be refused, who will blame us, if we 
charge the builders and supporters of New Havenism, with setting out 
upon an enterprise without counting the cost ? 

But how can any person pretend to the consistency of the New Haven 
Professors, when he compares the long paragraph quoted in Letter XI. 
with the declaration, " We have never affirmed that God could not ex- 
clude sin in a moral universe ?" When we consider what the Profes- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 55 

sors, by their representative, have affirmed, that the theory of God's abil- 
ity to prevent sin, leads to Universalism, to Infidelity, and Atheism ; 
when they have been so minute and confident as to attempt to point out 
how the theory leads to this downward course ; when we are told that 
it is the very scheme which Voltaire and other Atheists made use of in 
their wicked devices against all government, all social order, and all 
religion ; when we are informed that nothing but his inconsistencies 
saves a man from being the worst of heretics, if he believes that God is 
able to prevent sin ; and yet hear from the same quarter, " We have 
never affirmed that God could not exclude sin in a moral universe," shall 
we be told that all this is consistent! What, then, in the universe is 
inconsistent — what in the name of common sense can be inconsistent ? 
If any mortal will undertake to prove, through the press, that the wri- 
tings of the Professors on these specified points are consistent with them- 
selves, I will pledge myself to be a subscriber ; and if he should succeed, 
I think he oughtt o be placed in the temple of fame, and above him he who 
shall invent perpetual motion. It is trying to patience, that there should 
be such a holding on to a scheme, which is a baseless fabric, but which 
must be taught so many of our excellent young men every year, and 
carried about the world as the result of the most profound wisdom. I 
do not believe a case in theology has ever occurred, since the discovery 
of America, thought to be of so much consequence, which has presented 
a stronger temptation to think of the story concerning the mountain and 
the mouse, in an ancient poet. 

But it is my object in this letter to show, not only a gross inconsist- 
ency in the writings of the Professors, but a complete contradiction. 
After a labor of at least seven j'ears to convince the world of the vast 
importance of believing their scheme, they say conjointly over their own 
signatures, " We have never affirmed that God could not exclude sin 
from a moral universe." Have they never affirmed it? How, then, 
has it come to pass, that they have written, and lectured, and preached, 
and encouraged others to preach, that God had already done all he could 
do for the salvation of sinners, while sinners continued impenitent ? Is 
not this affirming, that God could not exclude sin, while the very object 
of such strange communications, was, to convince sinners that what re- 
mained to be done, they must do themselves ? If the Professors could be 
understood, this was prominent in their preaching — they labored hard to 
be so understood. If there is no falsehood between two affirmations 
which so completely contradict each other, then I must despair of know- 
ing what is the opposite of truth. It has been common for the Profes- 
sors to say to impenitent sinners, directly, affirmatively, " God has done 
all he can do for your salvation," while he had not prevented them from 



56 



LETTERS TO THE 



sinning a single day in the course of their lives. Will they then come 
forward and say, " We have never affirmed that God could not exclude 
sin V If I can understand what an affirmation is, they have affirmed it 
repeatedly, directly, and before many witnesses ; and witnesses too, who 
were much troubled when they heard such assertions, and who will not 
forget them. They have seemed to glory in this peculiarity of their 
scheme, which they have thought reached the conscience far better, 
than that which gives God the control of the heart. It was too late for 
them to make their denial to the public in 1835. It is necessary that 
they should be met with as much positiveness as they have assumed on 
this subject. They have taught that God could not exclude sin ; and I 
hope to be excused for stating circumstances. One of their pupils 
preached in my hearing in these words : " Sinners, God has done all he 
can do for your salvation. Christ has done all he can do for your sal- 
vation. The Holy Spirit has done all he can do for your salvation," 
&c. A few days afterward, an aged man, who had leaned in part on 
Universalism for many years, was hopefully converted. He was 
brought into the liberty of the gospel in the night. I saw him early next 
morning, and in all the ardor of a young convert he addressed me as 

follows: " Mr. N., I cannot agree with Mr. . He told me that God 

had done all he could for my salvation ; but if he had not done more for 
me than I could do for myself, I should have perished forever. I wres- 
tled with him in prayer two hours last night, and he had mercy on my 
soul." Though he spoke after this manner to others, as well as to me, 

in the simplicity of his heart, without the least prejudice against Mr. , 

I feared the consequences ; for it was a time of great excitement. But 
I thought it my duty to let the very exceptionable preaching pass in 
silence, though it distressed me when I heard it, and though it was most 
evident that the Holy Spirit had set his seal of reprobation upon it. Not 
a word was said on the subject between the preacher and myself; and 
I do not know to this day why, unless it was from the impulse of his 
conscience, that he asked me several weeks afterwards, to give him a 
more detailed account of the conversion referred to. He asked me if he 
said what that hearer understood 1 I replied in the affirmative. He 
then answered me thus. I suppose, then, I said wrong. I loved that 
brother before ; but he now raised himself higher in my estimation than 
ever. He acted like an honorable man and a Christian. I now felt 
that the grace of God in exercise, would annihilate such doctrines with- 
out ceremony. But it was less than a year afterward, that one of the 
Theological Professors preached the same things at Norwich, to the 
grief, I believe, of nearly all the humble piety in the place. I have 
been glad that I did not hear Jehovah belied on the occasion ! Yes, 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 57 

there are many who testify, that the preacher told the unconverted part 
of his audience, that God had already done all he ever could do for 
their salvation ; but three years afterwards, it seems he declared, con- 
junctly with his colleagues, that he had never affirmed that God could 
not exclude sin from a moral universe. After the striking evidence I 
had had of the displeasure of the Holy Spirit against the doctrine of 
God's inability, in the very interesting experience of my neighbor and the 
spontaneous confession of the ministerial brother, I did hope that the 
unscriptural, unworthy scheme would no more grate human ears. 
That its grave was dug. How then did I feel that a master in Israel, 
one who sailed so high, should give his testimony against the ability of 
Jehovah, to do so much as to convert and consequently, save from sin, 
a single impenitent sinner ! But this shock, after all, was not half so 
great as it was to learn that this same Professor did deny in print, what 
he had positively asserted, and that he has since held on with the tenacity 
of death, and taught the same inability in God, which he proclaimed in 
Norwich. And after all this, must we be gravely told, that there is not 
so much as an inconsistency in what the Professors have said on this 
subject ? What will be the end of so extensive a determination to 
uphold men, whose element seems to be philosophy and vain deceit, 
while truth is left to take care of itself? Are truth and falsehood to be 
alike vindicated and applauded, because those who fill high stations can 
adopt one or the other, according to circumstances ? What is to 
become of us, if such apparent untruthfulness is to be passed over 
without gospel investigation ? What an example this is setting the 
churches! It appears to me to be giving a deadly blow to all disci- 
pline — that it is an attempt to cover sin ; and to raise some, Popelike, 
above human responsibility. An effectual check ought to be given to 
such lawlessness as soon as possible, or it will feel itself too strong to 
submit to those rules of Christ, which are absolutely essential to the 
order and purity of his kingdom. I fear that it already depends upon 
its own dignity to overawe and outlive opposition. It cannot stoop 
so low as to accommodate long aggrieved brethren by a syllable of 
apology. Haughty silence, it seems, is good enough for them ! Has 
old, conscientious Connecticut come to this ? 



58 LETTERS TO THE 



LETTER XIII. 

2 COR. I; 12. — "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that is 

SIMPLICITY AND GODLY SINCERITY, NOT WITH FLESHLY WISDOM, BUT BY THE GRACE OF 
GOD, WE HAVE HAD OUR CONVERSATION IN THE WORLD." 

Sincerity is honesty of purpose in what we say or do. It stands 
opposed to hypocrisy, and all kinds and degrees of deception. It is an 
expression of truth, and consequently is the only ground of confidence 
in one another. The moment we distrust the sincerity of a man in 
what he says or does, that moment we begin to lose confidence in him. 
Hence the reason, why the scriptures so often enjoin the duty of sincer- 
ity, is obvious. The want of it implies an attempt to deceive others 
and exposes ourselves to be the objects of suspicion. Insincerity, 
therefore, is one of those sins, which carries a punishment along with 
it, and is destructive of the Christian character. It is no wonder then, 
that the apostles made it a specific object, to be sincere in all their 
communications. They believed just as they said : and it was to them 
a source of joy, that their consciences bore testimony to the sincerity 
which they were sure they manifested through the course of their min- 
istry. In the opinion of Paul, that sincerity which he was enabled to 
practice, stood opposed to " fleshly wisdom" — " That in simplicity and 
godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we 
have had our conversation in the world." By fleshly wisdom, he must 
have intended the wisdom which flows spontaneously from the carnal 
near t — a wisdom which rejects not such management as is supposed 
to be best adapted to carry a favorite point — that wisdom, which forgets, 
or overlooks principle in its zeal to accomplish its purpose, and can, 
without scruple, evade, deny, assert, magnify, diminish, use sophistry 
or duplicity, at its pleasure. In the employment of such arts, the 
ungodly world have been busy from time immemorial. Without doubt 
the inspired writers, both in the Old and New Testaments, had refer- 
ence to such management, when they spoke of the craftiness of the 
wise — of the disputers of this world, and of their foolishness and vanity. 
It was a special object with Paul and the other apostles to avoid the 
workings of this fleshly wisdom. They were inclined to indulge it like 
all the rest of Adam's apostate race ; and it was among various other 
things of which they found they must deny themselves. They did 
deny themselves, and enjoyed the benefit in the testimony of their con- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 59 

sciences. They were not only sincere, but their sincerity was godly. 
They wished not, like many in this depraved world, to shield themselves 
under the notion of sincerity, whatever might be its motive and end. 
They endeavored to glorify God, in exhibiting the truth and practicing 
righteousness, with all their souls. In this sense, they lived in sim- 
plicity and godly sincerity. 

Many disturbances originate in our world for the want of such a 
spirit : and it appears to me it is very rare to find insincerity practiced 
on so large a scale as it seems to be in the efforts of the Theological 
Professors at New Haven, and their coadjutors, relating to what is 
called New Divinity. Had they fearlessly adopted the theory which 
their famous supposition introduced, and endeavored to maintain it 
without any drawback, the case would have been very different. It is 
true, in the opinion of some (not in mine) they might have been deemed 
more heretical than they are now ; and such a course might have led 
to a separation which does not yet exist. But it would have worn the 
common appearance of sincerity, such as I think cannot be seen in the 
way the supposition has been managed. The Professors set out with 
great zeal, by means of a possible supposition, merely to make, as they 
would probably say, some improvements in theology ; but they are such 
improvements as would completely overturn our theological system if 
carried into effect. Under the head of a mere supposition, assertions 
and maxims are made, which, so far from taking a hypothetical form, 
are expressed in positive terms and have every appearance of full, 
settled belief; and they are insisted on as truths of immense import- 
ance. One of them is the proposition, that man has the power of con- 
trary choice. This is advocated as positive belief, and books are 
written to prove it ; and it is one of the points, which the New Divinity 
part of the community consider it their duty to vindicate, with the 
same zeal as they do any other fundamental maxim. Now this is 
a part of their hypothetical scheme ; and who does not see that on their 
own principle, it has nothing positive in it ? It simply may be true, 
that man as a free agent has the power of contrary choice. It never 
should assume the form of a positive assertion, for this is expressly con- 
trary to what the Professors have pretended. In like manner, when it 
is said, " that moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing 
influence," the proposition is well known to spring from the supposition, 
that God may not have been able to prevent sin ; and it ought always to 
be stated hypothetically. It should come to us in this form. It may be 
true, that moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing 
influence. The inventors of it are under obligation to hold this illus- 
ration as doubtful, as they do the supposition itself; but as they have 



60 LETTERS TO THE 

not done it, a constant deception has been practiced upon us, and we 
have a right to feel injured by it. It is a public abuse. 

Again. It is a part of the hypothetical speculations of the theologi- 
cal Professors to declare positively to impenitent sinners, that God has 
done all he can for them, or that he has done all he can for them up to 
the present time ; while they ought to have said, It may he that God 
has done all, &c. Such treatment of sinners on the momentous con- 
cerns of their souls has appeared to me to be fraught with an un- 
scriptural and dangerous unfairness — it is a trying of experiments 
with them, in some of the most delicate moments of their existence, 
when those who deal with them ought to be specially careful to adhere 
as closely to the scriptures as possible. It is to advance things to them 
as positively true, when nothing more is intended than that it may he so, 
and at a time when every suggestion made ought to convey truth 
the most clear and indisputable ! Neither is this all ; for while on the 
one hand, they have adventured to make bold assertions and establish 
positions and maxims which turn out to be merely hypothetical when 
examined to the bottom ; they endeavor on the other hand, to make the 
community believe, that they hold to the supreme independence of God, 
in the sense of the Westminster Catechism, and yet will not give up 
their supposition, that God may not be able to prevent sin. Is it not 
then a sober truth, that the Professors do not tell what they believe, 
in as definite a manner as the place they occupy, demands ? Do they 
believe positively, that God is supremely independent, that he has the 
perfect control of the hearts of all his moral creatures ? How can 
they be sincere in this belief, and still hold on to their supposition, 
which certainly renders this belief doubtful ! And especially when 
they endeavor to fortify their suppositions with positive positions and 
fundamental maxims ? Though the declaration is very far from being 
pleasant to me, I still feel it to be my duty to say, that I cannot perceive 
that sincerity on some of the most essential points in theology, which is 
necessary to confidence. Therefore, without further light it can be no 
satisfaction to me to hear sermons from their lips, which are clothed in 
language entirely and highly orthodox. The question about sincerity 
will come up. Sermons and professions can be of no avail, if they 
will not positively withdraw their supposition, and all its positions and 
conclusions. If they believe what their supposition teaches, let them 
come out and boldly deny every thing contrary to it. Let them say, 
they do not believe in that supreme independence in God, to which, 
they must know all real Calvinists hold. Let them deny, that God 
has a perfect control over the hearts of all moral beings, and turn their 
supposition into a theory. If they would do this and fearlessly pro- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 61 

claim it to the world, I would approve their honesty, however much I 
might be pained with their errors. It is too late in the day to have 
a treacherous theology. It is more than a church ought to bear in 
a single pastor. Much less ought a company of theological Professors 
to be tolerated in it. By it the Christian world generally, more 
especially New England, is suffering at the present time. The belief 
of the four theological Professors at Yale College ranges from the Cal- 
vinistic view of divine independence, down to the certainty, that this 
view leads " to Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism." They 
have all the intermediate space to work in. They can believe, sup- 
pose, and deny, and deny, and suppose, and believe, at their pleasure. 
Such play ground would do much better, if human responsibility con- 
sisted only in name — if deception had no wrong in it — if Christian the- 
ology were a mere plaything — if God had licensed us to trifle with his 
truth — if there were no judgment to come — no heaven, no hell, no God. 



LETTER XIV. 

GALATIANS, 4; 16. — "Am i therefore become your enemv, because i tell you the 

TRUTH 7" 

In my sixth letter, as will be recollected, I transcribed a sentence, 
which was in one of my letters to Dr. Goodrich, and which gave him 
great offence. In this communication, I propose to transcribe more of 
the same letter, and make occasional remarks as I proceed. 

I said to him, " I take it for granted, that your colleagues agree with 
you on the question you have answered ; and since you profess to be 
orthodox according to my views of orthodoxy, on the doctrine of Jeho- 
vah's independent supremacy, his supreme independence, I propose an- 
other thing : I ask you kindly, and respectfully, yet earnestly, to re- 
nounce publicly the supposition, ' that sin, (as to God's prevention,) 
may have been a necessary incident to the existence of a moral system ;' 
and not only the supposition itself, but all your reasoning upon it. 

"First, without such renunciation, you cannot convince one part of 
the community that you are sincere in your pretensions to orthodoxy on 
the doctrine of the divine supremacy. We must have a positive belief, 
with no systematical supposition attached to it, either directly or indi- 



62 LETTERS TO THE 

rectly, in any degree, shape, form, or manner whatever. Common 
honesty requires this. 

" Secondly : You certainly have no more authority or right to insti- 
tute a supposition involving any inability in God, in relation to what he 
would be glad to do, than you have to institute a supposition involving a 
doubt concerning his moral character, or his existence. Accordingly 
you have put a weapon in the hands of every heretic and atheistical 
mocker on earth. They can suppose as well as you, and with as much 
propriety ; and it would be folly on your part to attempt to silence them, 
unless you would, in the first place, renounce your own supposition. 

" Thirdly : You seem to be more desirous to subject the word of God 
to your schemes, than to subject your schemes to the word of God. 
Why do we hear about Jehovah's being ' restricted in the production 
of happiness,' when the Bible declares, that Christ is ' over all, God 
blessed forever V — that he is * far above every name that is named, not 
only in this world, but also in that which is to come.' In view of many 
such sweeping declarations of the word of God, is it entirely modest to 
proclaim, ' that the case is so plain, it is so easy to imagine a better 
world, or a better universe than the present, that the mind can never 
rest in the assurance that its author is benevolent, without supposing 
that he is restricted in the production of happiness by some impossibility 
involving a contradiction!' that 'here we must rest, or deny the bei:.vo- 
lence of an infinite Creator V I must say, that I believe the writer of 
these sentences, did, at the time, value his speculations higher than 
Jehovah's plain declarations ; and I shall believe that he continues to 
value them higher, unless he takes back such monstrous, abominable 
words/*' 

As the next paragraph in my letter to Dr. Geodrich contains substan- 
tially what is found on the foregoing pages of this work, it will be omit- 
ted. In my same letter I proceeded to state, 

" Fifthly : One peculiarly improper use to which you apply your 
supposition is, you make it all the proof you advance of Jehovah's sin- 
cerity as a law-giver, in case any one tells you that sin is the necessary 
means of the greatest good. Thus, the moral character of God is thrown 
into suspicion, by your most exceptionable speculations ; for if you 
knew any better way to prove the sincerity of God against objections, 
would you not use it % What advantage you give the followers of 
Abner Kneeland and Fanny Wright ! You have fairly opened the door 
for them to say, ' Your pretended belief in religion is sheer hypocrisy. 
You tell us how certain it is, that your God will fulfill all his promises, 
and all he threatens ; yet you cannot prove he is sincere ; you only 
suppose he is.' And it is a peculiarly mortifying circumstance to your 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. G3 

Old School brethren, that because there is yet a visible fellowship be- 
tween them and you, and because you and your colleagues are from 
your stations deemed leaders in theology, they must be exposed to bear 
the same reproach with you, while from their inmost souls they abhor 
all your hypothetical speculations in relation to God's truth.'"' 

<; Lest it should be imagined that 1 misrepresent you, I refer to the 
following words from one of the principal expounders of your scheme. 
He says, ' Among these speculations I include the New Haven hypothe- 
sis, as well as all others, which are designed to answer objections to the 
doctrines of grace.' This is simply carrying out your own principle. 
You found an objection against God's sincerity, and you interposed a 
supposition to answer it. In the above quotation, we find the same 
method is to be adopted in relation to the doctrines of grace without ex- 
ception : and on the same principle the supposition may be applied to the 
truth of divine revelation, to all the attributes of God, and to his ex- 
istence. Now it is well known, that objections have been brought 
against each doctrine of revealed, and what is sometimes called natural, 
religion. On this plan, an objector can make you turn all the articles 
of your creed into a bundle of suppositions in two hours. Here is the 
strength of your religious belief. Here is the way in which the four 
Professors present themselves before the public as the leading defenders 
oft 1 js truth. Here is the end of the wonderful improvement in theolo- 
.nce. Here is the grand result of that wisdom of man, which 
•s the Bible only secondary to his self-contrived schemes. This is 
bad. It throws a mountain of disgrace over the Puritans in Con- 

;ticut, not excepting the Corpcration of Yale College. (It is enough 

" There is no end to the framing of suppositions ; and they are as 
>ell adapted to one branch of knowledge as another. What if the 
Professors in the academical department of Yale College should find 
seeming difficulties in their several departments, while there would be 
none if they adhered to the text books : and in order to extricate them- 
selves should prepare a supposition for each troublesome case, and then 
let it go, to the high gratification of every blockhead in the college ? 
Should they do thus, the whole mass of scientific men in the country 
would point the finger of scorn at them. Yet this would be far less ex- 
ceptionable than to pursue such a course in relation to Jehovah's revealed 
truth, which is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes of religious 
knowledge." 

Remarks. The word of God was given to us expressly for this 
purpose. 

In Dr. Goodrich's last letter, he speaks of my being excited when I 
wrote to him. If by being " excited," he intends that I indulge sinful 



64 LETTERS TO THE 

feelings, and if he is correct on this point, I deeply regret it. I would 
not sin against my God. But I freely acknowledge that I have feelings, 
strong feelings, distressing feelings, when, according to my understand- 
ing, all the sweet truths which saints can feed upon in this present life, 
or in heaven, are put into jeopardy, and this glorious and fearful name, 
THE LORD THY GOD, is treated as the angelic hosts above would 
never wish or dare to treat it, by the needless and reckless speculations 
of the theological Professors at Yale College. If there is such a thing 
as holy indignation I would cherish it on this occasion ; and I believe 
there is such a thing. 

Referring to a letter which I wrote before to Dr. Goodrich, I say, 
" In my letter I argued, that if man as a free agent has the power of 
contrary choice, it must be so with God, as he is also a free agent ; and 
to prove that the power of contrary choice is not essential to free agen- 
cy, I introduced the passage of scripture, that ' it is impossible for God 
to lie.' You reply in these words : ' Nor has it been considered the 
best mode of reasoning to argue from the infinite to the finite — from the 
perfections of God, which are involved in mystery, to the nature of the 
human mind, whose operations may be brought to the test of conscious- 
ness.' But as you without doubt admit that God is a free agent, do you 
intend to insinuate, that his free agency is destitute of what you make 
an essential quality of man's free agency ? If it is not proper to argue 
from ' the infinite to the finite,' it is on account of God's superiority, no* 
inferiority to man. Hence it is rather singular that you should reverse 
the order of things, and presume that because God is deficient in the 
qualities of a free agent in your sense of these terms, therefore, we 
must not argue from ' the infinite to the finite.' Why not say we must 
not argue from the finite to the infinite, since the finite is made superior 
to the infinite ? I was not expecting that you would adopt such an ex- 
pedient to rid yourself of Bible truth in order to preserve your darling 
dogma about the power of contrary choice. It is unworthy of him who 
has been so successfully perfecting Dr. Webster's capital Dictionary. 
Here is one of my strong objections to the whole scheme of metaphysi- 
cal speculations, which has originated among the theological Professors 
at Yale College. The word of God must not stand in their way." 

In a letter from Dr. Goodrich, dated Sept. 29, 1848, he referred me to 
a sermon of Dr. Emmons, on Acts 27 ; 31, in which he maintains that 
" men have natural power to prevent the decrees of God from taking 
effect." " Men have natural power to frustrate those divine decrees, 
which they are appointed to fulfill." In my answer to Dr. Goodrich 
I say, " it is nearly half a century since I knew of Dr. Emmons' saying 
that man has natural power to break the divine decrees," &c. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 65 

I knew and greatly respected Dr. Emmons from my childhood. But 
my father had an old book, which he taught me is true, and which I 
deem of higher authority than Dr. Emmons. In that book we read, 
" Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of our- 
selves ; but our sufficiency is of God." In the same book, Christ is 
represented as saying, " Without me ye can do nothing." Now I be- 
lieve these declarations to be strictly true, metaphysicians to the contrary 
notwithstanding. The notions, therefore, that man has natural power 
to break the decrees of God, that he has the power of contrary choice, 
that he can do wrong or right, under all possible preventing influence, 
if true in any sense, are so only metaphysically, or in theory ; that is, 
merely in the imagination ; and all the good they do is to swell up world- 
ly wisdom, to make certain people stare, and to darken the scriptures. 
Since I have the word of God before me, you cannot convince me of any 
utility in them, if you present me with a pile of D. D.s, L. L. D.s, and 
S. T. P.s to support them, which shall reach to the moon. Dr. Em- 
mons lived to see some of his speculations turned against his own 
system of doctrines by you and your colleagues. Accordingly, when 
he learned that one of his scholars was opposed to your speculations, he 
requested him in very strong terms to continue to oppose you." 

I would now remark, that though Dr. Emmons held to a nature of 
things which God could not control, as we find in a sermon of his from 
Isa. 5 ; 20, yet it seems that this nature of things, in his view, is always 
in God's favor. According to Dr. Emmons, God can always do just as 
he pleases. Perhaps there never was a theologian who dwelt more 
upon the doctrine of divine independence, (or divine sovereignty,) than 
Dr. Emmons. But on the other hand, the theological Professors at New 
Haven have found this nature of things to be in Jehovah's way. It is 
supposed that he is so restricted by it that he is eternally unable to do 
what he otherwise would accomplish ; that it shackled him in his coun- 
sel before he created the universe, and that he has been shackled ever 
since, and ever will be. Yea, it seems, according to New Havenism, 
that the nature of things has operated much more to the disadvantage of 
God, than of man. It makes man the giant, and God the child/ (0 
man ! do you not pity your Maker !) We may here perceive what the 
Christian world is coming to, by beginning theology not where the Bible 
begins it — by vainly attempting to look beyond God, and by laying 
pillars for our theological temple in chaos, in eternal confusion, where 
modesty and common sense and piety demand everlasting silence ! 

I now proceed to quote more of my letter to Dr. Goodrich. li It is 
worthy of notice, also, that Dr. Emmons did not make the power of 
contrary choice so prominent in his system as it is in yours. According 
9 



66 LETTERS TO THE 

to Miss Catharine Beecher, this dogma is the whole foundation on which 
the peculiarities of New Divinity rest. Your whole scheme, (as I 
understand Miss Beecher,) which has made so much trouble in the 
country — which to a very great extent has produced jealousy, aliena- 
tion of affections, dissention, discord among brethren, and even painful 
separations, is built upon what you do not pretend in your letter is 
practically true. Here is that world of wonders into which the minis- 
ters and churches have been so strongly urged to look. Here is the 
demonstration of the swift march of mind, and the gigantic strides 
of theological improvement. Here is " the happy alternative of Calvin- 
ism — the universal interpreter of the Bible — the solver of theological 
doubts — the measuring reed to span Jehovah — the magnifying glass to 
describe man when thoroughly improved by it — and in short the direct 
way to the millennium." This wonderful scheme makes no preten- 
sions to be founded on the general current of the scriptures, nor on one 
solitary text, nor even on a fact in experimental philosophy, either 
physical or mental ; but simply a mere metaphysical notion ! It is 
extremely painful to me to consider what high claims it has made to 
gain the credence of the Christian world ; for I deem it to be an 
unscriptural, anti-protestant scheme, far better suited to the character 
of the dark ages, than of the nineteenth century, when a Bible can be 
procured for fifty cents. Yet this " baseless fabric," this caper of 
worldly wisdom, this " vain deceit," this freak of the imagination, has 
become the subject of grave history in theology. It has been trumpet- 
ed over the world, as though it contained all the combined wisdom of 
Bacon, Locke and Edwards — as though it would descend to future gen- 
erations as the essence of a great era of light — as though posterity 
would be prepared to pity the ignorance of the world till its transcend- 
ent effulgence burst out. The scheme would form an exercise far more 
appropriate for an insane hospital, than for a school of the prophets ; 
and it is a remarkable fulfillment of 2 Timothy, 4 ; 4 — " They shall 
turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 

The conclusion of my letter to Dr. Goodrich, from which I have 
quoted so much, reads thus : "It is plain to me, therefore, that it will 
be honorable for you to renounce all your hypothetical schemes. ' To 
the law and the testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, it 
is because there is no light in them.' We need never to be ashamed to 
own that we have been in the fault, for this is only saying that we are 
wiser to-day than we were yesterday." 

" Whatever communication you may make with me on the subjects 
of this letter, will not be satisfactory unless it be made also with the 
public." 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 67 

The reader is probably curious to know how Dr. Goodrich answered 
this letter. Before I proceed to show, it is proper to state that his next 
letter filled five unusually large sheets, (quarto,) closely written, in 
which he says : " I have answered, as I believe, every argument con- 
tained in your printed letter, and in your private communications." I 
will first notice how Dr. Goodrich answered my printed letter ; or 
rather, how he passed over in silence many of its most prominent 
topics — such as had for years given me and many others great uneasi- 
ness, and I believe not without sufficient cause. 

1. He made no reply to the opinion which I fully expressed in my 
printed letter, that the speculations of the New Haven Professors are an 
illustration of Colossians, 2 ; 8, in which the Christian world are called 
upon to " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain 
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 
not after Christ." Dr. Goodrich therefore virtually acknowledges the 
correctness of my opinion on this point. 

2. Professor Goodrich made no reply to my printed belief, that the 
Professors make the Bible secondary to their speculations, rather than 
make their speculations secondary to the Bible. 

3. On page 31 of my printed letter, Dr. Goodrich chose not to notice 
five passages of scripture, which I introduced at one time to show how 
clearly the word of God contains the doctrine of the divine independ- 
ence, contrary to the Professors' speculations. 

4. Dr. Goodrich took no notice of 2 Corinthians, 1 ; 18 — 20, which 
I introduced and commented upon, pages 72, 73, in my printed letter, 
and which most pointedly condemns the Yea — Nay — course of the 
Professors. Neither, 

5. Did he refer to the example of Christ, recorded Mark, 14 ; 36, 
which I adduced, pages 76, 77, to show that the prayer of the Saviour 
in his agony administers a tremendous rebuke to all who talk about 
such an inability in God, as is the corner-stone of the New Haven Pro- 
fessors' speculations. 

6. Dr. Goodrich did not touch the argument in my printed letter, on 
pages 21 — 24, in which I show how the speculations of himself and 
colleagues throw " everything in the moral universe into a state of 
uncertainty." 

7. Dr. Goodrich has said not a word, by way of apology for the 
extraordinary irreverent manner, in which the New Haven speculations 
treat Jehovah, which I exposed, pages 10 — 14, and which I feel bound 
to expose whenever I can. 

8. He has not disproved the five changes, to which the famous suppo- 
sition is subjected, as I explained it on page 18 of my printed letter. 



68 



LETTERS TO THE 



Were it necessary, I could state many other important points, which 
Dr. Goodrich passed over in silence ; and I believe he did so for the 
simple reason, that he could not gainsay what was advanced. Why he 
said he had answered every argument, I know not. 

9. One thing more must not be omitted, which is the manner in 
which Dr. Goodrich treats what I said in my printed letter pages 46, 
47, beginning with this sentence. " You must show the public that you 
can prove the sincerity of God as a Law-giver, without resorting to a 
mere supposition for the purpose." In following up this most reas- 
onable demand, I say, page 47, " I acknowledge I have been amazed 
at your oversight on this subject — by reason of which you have seemed 
to me to have exposed the moral character of God and the doctrines of 
grace, and consequently all true religion, to the sneers of infidelity 
and atheism.' 7 Several months after my letter to the Professors was 
printed, I wrote a short letter to another minister, who I expected, 
would show the contents to the Professors, which was accordingly done. 
In that letter, among two or three other things, I proposed that they 
should prove the sincerity of God as a lawgiver, against all objections, 
without resorting to a possible supposition for the purpose. Dr. Good- 
rich wrote to the minister referred to, and he showed me the letter. I 
was surprised to find that it contained nothing on this subject. I then 
wrote directly to Dr. Goodrich, and before I closed, I renewed my 
request, that the Professors would prove the " sincerity of God as a 
lawgiver, against all objections, without resorting to a mere, non-com- 
mittal supposition for the purpose." Not long afterward, I received a 
letter from Dr. Goodrich, in which he freely discussed other topics, but 
passed over in silence this concerning God's sincerity. I then wrote to 
him what is transcribed on the subject, in this " Letter to the Christian 
Public." After all this requesting and pressing, on a subject as funda- 
mental and momentous as is the moral character of God, what, gentle 
reader, do you think I have at last received in reply ? It is simply 
this : " With all the obliquity of mind you impute to us, we are not 
quite so silly as to attempt any direct and positive proof of the divine 
sincerity, by a mere supposition of possible truth." I ask, why then 
the Professors do not attempt a direct and positive proof of the divine 
sincerity, without a supposition ? is it fair to put all they have to com- 
municate on so serious a subject in one evasive sentence ? Why not 
attempt to prove the sincerity of God, positively ? This is what is 
demanded of every person, who pretends to be a theologian ; and noth- 
ing short of such positive proof will answer. Can the Professors hope, 
that they are dealing with a community that will suffer them to evade 
this subject forever 1 If they are involved in difficulty they have done 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



69 



it themselves, and are responsible for the consequences. In by-gone 
days, it was taken for granted, that every person, who claimed to teach 
theology, had a system, all the parts of which he would at least attempt 
to vindicate by direct and positive proof. Whether his arguments were 
conclusive was not the question. But it was expected, that the teacher 
of theology did himself fully believe what he taught ; and that he 
believed he could vindicate his system, especially the most essential part 
of it, without a supposition. But to my understanding, it is as clear as 
that the day follows the night, and the night the day, that the theologi- 
cal Professors at Yale College cannot or will not prove the sincerity of 
God as a lawgiver, any farther than a barely possible supposition does 
it. They have shown the public, that the doctrine, that sin is the 
necessary means of the greatest good, in their view impeaches the sin- 
cerity of God. They have unequivocally shown the public, that the 
way to meet this objection is, to suppose that God is unable to prevent 
sin. Now if they would avow the opinion, that God is not able to 
prevent sin, and persevere in it, they would maintain at least a positive 
opinion on the subject, whether it be sound or not. But this they will 
not do. They will not affirm that God is unable to prevent sin ; and 
on the other hand, they fully believe, that if he is able to prevent sin, 
but does not, he is without sincerity. Where else in all Christendom 
is there a professed theologian, who would be willing to risk his charac- 
ter with such doubts about the sincerity of God ? Yet, notwithstanding 
this awful chasm in their system of divinity, how largely they have 
talked, these twenty years, about accurate distinctions, and about the 
philosophy of religion. We must understand the vast difference there 
is between what is necessary and what is certain ! We must under- 
stand, that we cannot be free agents, unless we have the power of 
contrary choice to such an extent, that we can regenerate ourselves 
without the aid of the divine Spirit — that we can do wrong (or right) 
under all possible preventing influence. We must understand, that all 
such extra ability in man detracts proportionably from the ability of 
God. He is represented as having " his match," as having done all he 
can, while the object of his ardent desire is not accomplished — as being 
glad to do more than he can. Thousands of hearers have been taught 
such pretended first principles as are designed to show what Jehovah 
cannot do in relation to what he would do if he could. Yea, in a cer- 
tain case, God is put so much beneath man, as the child is beneath 
a giant ! Amidst this shipwreck of the competency of Jehovah, to 
manage his own concerns as he would be glad to do, these theological 
Professors have been strongly urged at least, to shield the moral charac- 
ter of God from suspicion — to let us know positively, that he is sincere 



70 LETTERS TO THE 

as a lawgiver. And how are we treated in this most reasonable and 
earnest and repeated request ? It is by silence and evasion ! " Which 
strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." 

My beloved ministerial brethren of New England : When we adven- 
tured to enter into the gospel ministry, was it not the command of God, 
and the expectation of men, even of scoffers, that the character of the 
Most High should ever be venerated by us ? That we should ever 
treat all his attributes with the most profound respect, reverence and 
awe ? Can we believe it ever entered the mind of an angel in heaven, 
that we should subject the infinite and glorious God to be daguerreo- 
typed by the standard of man's invention, and let fall the seeds of skep- 
ticism concerning his sincerity ? Or that in the article of free agency 
we should place man as far above him, as a giant is superior to a child ? 

Dear brethren, as shocking as these things may seem, I see not but 
we must rely upon my representation as strictly true ; for Dr. Goodrich 
has reviewed, at his leisure, what I have communicated to him and his 
colleagues on these points of difference between us, but has confined 
his strictures to other topics. That he should do thus, under his 
peculiar circumstances, clearly shows that he has nothing to say by 
way of defense, in relation to the topics brought to view in this letter. 
He knows I have made no mis-statement with consideration. 

For many years I have been much troubled with the belief, whether 
correct or not, that some ministers and editors in New England have 
manifested a degree of connivance at the New Haven speculations, 
which is a betrayment of the most sacred and responsible trust ever 
committed to man, namely, that of defending the sacredness of this 
glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD. Brethren, ought 
we ever to forget, that " the Lord thy God is a jealous God ?" W T ho 
wants more evidence of the rottenness and dangerous tendency of a 
scheme, than its treating the name of his God with marked irreverence ? 

Having considered how Dr. Goodrich answered my printed letter, I 
proceed to show what order he has thought proper to take of my letter 
to him, the greatest portion of which is before the reader. I would say 
then, that he has said nothing satisfactory in reply to the declaration I 
made, that the Professors have so left the sincerity of God as a law- 
giver, as to expose themselves to the attacks of infidels. Neither has 
he touched my argument, that on the principle of a distinguished ex- 
pounder of the New Haven hypotheses, all the articles of faith in both 
natural and revealed religion, may be turned into a bundle of supposi- 
tions, whenever they are opposed. Neither has Dr. Goodrich a word 
to say against my statement, that according to his own admission, New 
Divinity, which has made such a noise in the world, has " no preten- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 71 

sions to be founded on the general current of the scriptures, nor on one 
solitary text, nor even on a fact in experimental philosophy, either phys- 
ical or mental ; but simply on a mere metaphysical notion. 5 ' I fully 
believed my statements correct against New Divinity, when I penned 
them. I now have the most satisfactory evidence that I made no 
important mistake ; it is the evidence which an opponent furnishes. I 
thank Dr. Goodrich for the service he has rendered me on this intricate 
subject. Though I was sure I was correct, yet my testimony alone 
would not be so convincing to others, as to have his tacit admission fol- 
low, on the most essential points. This admission I have — an admission 
he would never make, without rigid necessity. Also, I am indebted to 
Dr. Goodrich, for showing clearly, as may be seen in the sixth and 
eighth letters, how eagerly some men will chase phantoms, and even 
make them a part of their divinity. 

My last letter to Dr. Goodrich was extremely offensive to him. He 
has much to say in his reply about my discourteous and ungentlemanly 
treatment of him ; and toward the close of his letter are these two sent- 
ences : " I will only say, that I do not consider myself as under any 
obligation to continue a correspondence which subjects me to such 
treatment, I must therefore decline any further communication with 
you on these subjects." 

Dr. Goodrich is one of the last men upon earth to complain of ill 
treatment from those brethren who deem it their duty to deal plainly 
with him. He is one of the four, who has taken advantage of the con- 
fiding spirit of his brethren, in a time of great peace and prosperity 
among the ministers and churches, and has with his colleagues introduc- 
ed such philosophical schemes as have destroyed harmony, and filled 
with deep regret, the hearts of multitudes. I am one of those, whose 
feelings have been deeply wounded, and have often been shocked, during 
many years, at the unscriptural liberties, which these gentlemen have 
seen fit to take with God. Dr. Goodrich does not know all the sleep- 
less nights, which he and his associates have occasioned to such of their 
brethren, as thought they early saw that nothing but mischief would fol- 
low New Divinity speculations. Indeed, I have evidence, which satisfies 
me, that Dr. Goodrich was the very jjerson, who first set in motion the 
wheels of strife, by adopting parts of Chevalier Ramsay's skeptical 
scheme, which Dr. Bellamy refuted a century ago. To my understand- 
ing, such speculations were totally inconsistent with what the West- 
minster Catechism teaches, and would, if not checked, break up the 
foundations of Puritan Orthodoxy, and every positive system of theology, 
and be the entering wedge to universal skepticism. I shall not disguise, 
that one of the most repulsive features in all the speculations of Dr. 



72 



LETTERS TO THE 



Goodrich and his colleagues, as far as they opened to my understanding, 
was the annihilation of that supremacy of God, which I then believed, 
(and believe still,) to be essential to the idea, we ought always to attach 
to the great First Cause. In the course of my life, I have heard preach- 
ing of many grades, from the extreme of Emmonsism, to gross Univer- 
salism ; and in no other case have I ever heard the Lord Jehovah so 
belittled as by the propagators of New Havenism. Such preaching has 
distressed me greatly. If I must hear my God degraded so low, let it 
not be done by those who lay the least claim to New England Orthodoxy. 
It may be expected of those who glory in modern transcendentalism, but 
not of the professed advocates of the Westminster Catechism. The ex- 
clamation has repeatedly been, " What a God they make of him !" As 
Dr. Goodrich has brought up the subject of sensibility, my mind will 
run back to those days of affliction, when we heard about such a God as 
we had not been accustomed to adore ; but a new one, as we thought, to 
be imposed upon us. Some circumstances of those days of mischievous 
speculations are still fresh in my memory. It came to me directly from 
one of the Professors: " They may squirm as much as they please ; but 
we are determined to drive it through." These conciliating, sweet words 
were uttered in reference to the peaceable Old School brethren, who, 
God be praised, were established in the faith. This was all kind and 
courteous, and gentlemanly ! At a certain time, when I was greatly 
exercised on the subject of the Professors' speculations, an aged deacon 
called upon me, and with deep concern asked me, if I had changed my 
sentiments. It appeared upon examination, that there was an election- 
eering campaign going on, and I was by mistake marshaled on the New 
Haven side. Did this please me ? About this time it was reported, 
that all the ministers in Connecticut under forty years of age were on 
"our side." But as wounding as such things were to the feelings of 
those ministers, who thought they knew what they were about, they 
were almost insignificant, compared with what followed. I shall trans- 
cribe what I addressed to the Professors in my printed letter, on page 
forty-first. il Here I take the liberty to state, that your treatment of 
those whom you grieved, was unbrotherly and unkind. You were the 
whole cause of our troubles ; but when you found it was not as easy to 
stop them as to commence them, then you attempted, as I have reason to 
believe, to turn the odium from yourselves, and let it fall on the heads of 
the Orthodox. You may yet explain this affair, but as it has hitherto ap- 
peared, it has shown a disingenuousness, which is a worm at the root of 
all friendship and respect. What baser passions in the human breast than 
such as can thus trifle with the feelings of quiet brethren, whose only 
crime consists in determining to maintain what they consider to be the 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 73 

truth as it is in Jesus, and who have independence enough to oppose 
daring and reckless innovators, however elevated may be their stations." 

Dr. Goodrich knows that this statement is correct ; for if it were not, 
he would have signified his dissent in his correspondence with me. For 
aught that appears, he deems such treatment of his brethren kind and 
courteous, doing as he would be done by ! Very polite ! As he be- 
lieves he has answered every argument in my printed Letter, it is very 
probable he read the book through. But I conclude that what I have 
now quoted, made no impression on his mind. He knew not but that he 
and his associates had treated their Old School brethren in a gentleman- 
ly manner, very polite ! If we were accused of " heresy-hunting," 
and " contending about the veriest trifles," while we were trying to 
sustain the religion of our Puritan fathers and our ordination vows, it 
was all well ! If we were held up before the public as " disturbersof 
the peace," because we tried to defend the Bible truth, against hypo- 
thetical, and consequently, skeptical, attacks, it was all well, in view of 
Dr. Goodrich. It was very polite, and refined. But when I presented 
some truths to his mind, in a manner not to he misunderstood or refuted ; 
when I clearly pointed out the tendencies and results of his scheme, and 
showed him that it is not founded either on scripture or fact, but is whol- 
ly a "baseless fabric;" it seems he thought my treatment of him too ill- 
mannerly to be borne; and has, consequently, withdrawn all intercourse 
with me on the subjects of debate !" " Am I therefore become your ene- 
my because I tell you the truth ?" 

This course of Dr. Goodrich speaks volumes. He has left New 
Divinity entirely defenseless, under the charges brought against it. It 
is therefore destined to death so far as one, and probable the only, first 
contriver is concerned. Its mortal wound is given by himself; and how- 
ever protracted and gigantic may be it's struggles, yet they will be dying 
struggles; and all attempts to restore it will be as fruitless as would be 
an attempt to cure the wounded hand of a man after his head is severed 
from his body. 

The manner in which Dr. Goodrich has left the field of discussion, 
where so many important and essential truths are involved, affords room 
for easy conjecture. It reminds one of the directions which officers 
give to those on guard, who are to watch the motions of the enemy in 
the night. If they see or hear any thing suspicious, the orders arc, 
"Fire and run." 

Note. I have heard, that Dr. Goodrich thinks I have no right to make a public 
use of his valedictory letter to me. But why not ? Did I not plainly notify him be- 
fore he wrote, that "Whatever communication you mav make with me on the sub- 

10 



74 LETTERS TO THE 

jects of this letter will not be satisfactory unless it be made also with the public." 
Had an opponent of mine given me such a caution, and I should write to him after- 
ward, I cannot conceive that I should have the least reason to complain, if he made 
such use of my letter as he pleased, provided he should not misstate, and conse- 
quently misrepresent me ; and this would be wholly at my risk. But I shall not so 
treat Dr. Goodrich or any other man, unless by mere mistake. I profess to be as 
much fixed against such acts, as against any other forms of bearing false witness 
against my neighbor. 

The reader may be assured that I have published whatever in my letter has of- 
fended Dr. Goodrich so terribly. 



LETTER XV 



GALATIANS, 2; 11-14. — "But when peter was come to antioch, i withstood him toths 

FACE, BECAUSE HE WAS TO BE BLAMED. FOR BEFORE THAT CERTAIN CAME FROM JAMES, HE DID 
EAT WITH THE GENTILES; BUT WHEN THEY WERE COME HE WITHDREW, AND SEPARATED HIM- 
SELF, FEARING THEM WHICH WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION. AND THE OTHER JEWS DISSEMBLED 
LIKEWISE ; INSOMUCH THAT BARNABAS ALSO WAS CARRIED AWAY WITH THEIR DISSIMULATION. 
BUT WHEN I SAW THAT THEY WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY, ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOS- 
PEL, I SAID UNTO PETER BEFORE THEM ALL, IF THOU, BEING A JEW, LIVEST AI-TER THE MANNER 
OF THE GENTILES, AND NOT AS D THE JEWS, WHY COMPELLEST THOU THE GENTILES TO LIVE A3 
DO THE JEWS." 

Paul, according to these words, has set a proper example of frankness 
in cases where brethren ought to be reproved ; and if the cause of the 
reproof be public, so should the reproof be. " Paul said to Peter be- 
fore them all." Said he, "I withstood him to the face, because he was 
to be blamed." The case was that of dissimulation ; and he declared 
it boldly, with all its circumstances, without the fear or favor of any one. 
By the act of dissimulation practiced by Peter, Barnabas and others, 
Paul "saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the 
gospel." The pen of divine inspiration has carefully recorded the whole 
transaction, to be preserved through all time, for the instruction and 
warning of ministers and churches. We are plainly taught by the fore- 
going passage, that those who practice dissimulation do not walk up- 
rightly according to the truth of the gospel ; and they ought accordingly 
to be blamed; and if the offence be public, they ought to be publicly 
blamed — that public testimony ought to be borne against such practices 
so lon^ as they are continued. 

I think it will not be disputed by any one, that dissimulation .is con- 
tained in that philosophy and vain deceit, which are so obviously con- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 75 

demned by an inspired apostle, in Colossians 2 ; 8. In my printed 
Letter to the Theological Professors at Yale college, I considered in dif- 
ferent places, and by different illustrations, that their speculations par- 
took of the nature of such philosophy. I made no mistake on this point ; 
for if I had, Dr. Goodrich would, without doubt, have noticed it, in that 
letter to me, in which he believes he has answered every argument I have 
used. The way then is prepared to show the extent of that dissimulation. 
In doing it, I shall advance no idea, which Dr. Goodrich has not seen, 
either in my printed Letter to the Professors, or in what I have written 
to him individually. I say, then, without contradiction from Dr. Good- 
rich, that while he and his colleagues declare their full belief in the su- 
preme independence and infinite power of God, they use a supposition in 
such a manner, as to render these fundamental doctrines doubtful. That 
they use a supposition in such a manner, as to change the character of 
the divine decrees, election and regeneration ; and to render uncertain 
the perseverance of the saints, and all government over moral beings. 
That the very design of the supposition in relation to the doctrines of 
grace, is to answer such objections as may be brought against them. 

Now an answer to an objection necessarily implies proof. All the 
proof, then, which the Professors propose to bring in favor of the doc- 
trines of grace, when assailed, is made to depend on a supposition, 
which, from its nature, is destitute of any thing positive, God cannot 
be a holy being, unless he is sincere. But the Professors inform us, 
that the very object for which they at first instituted a supposition that 
God may not have been able to prevent sin, was to prove his sincerity 
as a lawgiver against what they consider an objection. A bare suppo- 
sition, then, is all the proof they furnish of the divine sincerity when it 
is assailed. In my printed Letter to the Professors, page 18, I stated 
that they have presented their supposition that God may not have been 
able to prevent sin, in five different attitudes. " First it is a possible 
supposition ; secondly, it is probable and highly probable; thirdly, it is 
a real positive argument ; fourthly, it changes back to nothing ; and 
fifthly, it springs again from nothing to be a possible supposition, a mere 
may be." 1 then add, "if I am not deceived, I can produce examples 
from your writings to prove these five changes." Thus I have fairly 
laid myself open to be taken up. But Dr. Goodrich, it seems, chooses 
to withdraw all communication with me on the subject, rather than to 
attempt to confute me. In short, the Professors have introduced a sup- 
position into their theology, to be employed as it is deemed necessary ; 
a supposition which tends to unsettle the great fundamental doctrines of 
Puritan orthodoxy, and to embarrass those who would sustain them, in 
a direct manner. The exertions made to hold on to this supposition, or 



76 LETTERS TO THE 

make any use of it, by those who freely sign orthodox creeds, is as plain 
a case of dissimulation as ever was, or can be, practiced. Now, know- 
ing as we do, the character and example of Paul, we need not hesitate a 
moment to decide what he would do, if he were living in New England 
at this time. He, who proclaimed to all coming generations, that he 
openly blamed Peter, and Barnabas, and many others, for dissimulation, 
would not be silent. lie would speak out. It would not, with him, be 
a matter for calculating in dollars and cents; nor would he tremble, 
lest the performance of his duty should be a suicidal act. It would 
make no difference with him, as to the discharge of his duty, on whom 
the blame should fall. His only question to settle would be, whether 
any did not walk uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel ; and 
he has shown that those do not thus walk, who dissemble. He had but 
one rule on this point in dealing with his fellow creatures. He required 
no more of the most illiterate, and ignorant, than that they should walk 
uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel. Nor could he require 
less of the most distinguished for wealth, or learning, or talents, or pop- 
ularity, or high stations, or influence ; or because they were his old fa- 
miliar friends, his classmates, if you please. He would speak out, 
though he should bring upon his head the criticisms of his timorous 
friends, and the ridicule of petty periodicals. Pie would speak out, 
though for so doing he might expose himself to be called an " old blood- 
thirsty warrior, who never can be easy without fighting," — though he 
should be charged with calling up old controversies, that had been dead 
and buried. Paul was one of that sort of men, who did not believe that, 
wrong doing, would, in a few years, become out-lawed, like book ac- 
counts ; or that God forgets what we should be glad to forget. He 
would not be afraid publicly to blame ministers and laymen now for dis- 
simulation, any more than in former days : — no, if he had a congrega- 
tion to address that would cover a whole continent, and a voice which 
could reach them all. And if he could not put a stop to the practice of 
dissembling, by his living voice, he would try his pen — that pen, which 
on common occasions was so condescending, kind, gentle, loving, con- 
ciliating, peaceable, meek and forgiving ; but which could be terrible 
to " deceitful workers." I fall very far below Paul in point of wisdom 
and grace ; yet I think I can say in truth, that for a long course of 
years, I have attempted to make him, next to Christ, my model in my 
treatment of my fellow creatures, however much I have come short. I 
would, like Paul, keep my eye steadily on truth and duty, and pursue 
them, let consequences be what they may. As I understand his course, 
and that which the word of God universally prescribes, it should make 
no difference whether public sentiment is with us or against us ; or 



CHRISTIAN PUELIC. 77 

whether there be more or fewer, who may be seen to join us ; for if we 
are in the right, there are, in reality, more with us than against us. The 
entire plainness of Paul might expose him to severe remarks in this age 
of gentility — how it was when he took such liberty I know not. This I 
know, that he perceived that Peter, and Barnabas, and others, "walked 
not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel" — they used " dissim- 
ulation." This he could not silently endure; and who can? He de- 
termined to reprove this fault in a public manner, without stopping to 
inquire, whether those who committed it were not good people ; or 
whether he might not overact by his great plainness, in stating the case 
just as it was; or whether there might not be some anti-scriptural sym- 
pathising souls present, ready to join the accused, for no other reason 
than because they were accused. It was no question with him, whether 
dealing with delinquents faithfully would set them off, or not. Neither 
would he be willing to have it sounded abroad, that it was nothing but 
a quarrel between him and Peter, and if they would settle their quarrel 
between themselves, all would be well. Nor would he be reconciled 
to have the concern dropped, on the belief that the essence of making 
peace consists in hushing up delinquencies and scandals, because love 
will set all things right, whether there be any repentance or not. Paul 
would not think that a man greatly promoted truth and righteousness, 
even if he should pretend to be on their side, provided he must first put 
the friends of them down on a level with opposers in order to display 
the sovereignty of his umpirage. He never saw but one way to his 
duty, and that was the direct way. He did not wait to have others form 
public opinion, that he might cautiously follow it; but he considered it 
his indispensable duty to do all in his power Xoform public sentiment on 
correct principles, let who would oppose, and try to frighten him. This 
course he and Silas pursued, though they made the sticklers for old cus- 
toms, and any sort of peace but gospel peace, at Thessalonica, cry out, 
M These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also." 
As Paul called Peter to account, in an uncompromising manner, for 
what he saw deceptive in him, so he was careful to abstain from every 
thing of the kind himself. We have every reason to believe, that he 
was always frank — that he said nothing, wrote nothing, did nothing, cal- 
culated to mislead any one. Indeed, it is his perfect plainness, in con- 
nection with the other inspired writers, which has given so much unea- 
siness in the world. He found it necessary to be explicit on some doc- 
trines, which are very offensive to the unhumbled heart. Peter's testi- 
mony of his writings is this: " Even as our beloved brother Paul also, 
according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you : (Peter 
has taken no exception to Paul's plain dealing with him,) as also in all 



78 LETTERS TO THE 

his epistles speaking in them of these things ; in which are some things 
hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, 
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 
2 Peter 3; 15, 16. 

In as much as what Peter calls " hard to be understood,'' in Paul's 
writings, was wrested by " the unlearned and unstable, unto their own 
destruction," it is evident he did not intend that they could not appre- 
hend their meaning ; for if it were so, they could not be said to wrest, 
or pervert such scriptures. Undoubtedly Peter intended, that these 
" unlearned and unstable," were unwilling to adhere to the plain import 
of some of Paul's writings, and of other sacred writers. It has ever 
been so since. It is not the want of understanding, at first, but it is the 
blindness of unbelief occasioned by an unreconciled heart, which makes 
some of the doctrines of the Bible so hard to be understood. A venera- 
ble pastor once told the writer, that he called upon a family in his par- 
ish, where the lady of the house was a member of his church. She was 
very glad to see him, and spoke to this effect: " Sir, I have been wish- 
ing to see you of late, for I have been troubled about the doctrine of 
election." He asked her, " Why are you troubled about that doctrine ? 
Is it because it is not in the Bible, or because it is there ?" " Oh," said 
she, " Because it is there." Ah ! here is the trouble. 

The fact, that this doctrine is plainly revealed, (and no inspired wri- 
ter is more clear and definite on the subject than Paul,) has led some to 
begin at an immense distance from it, to undermine it. Others have 
tried to find some way around it. Some have attempted to pass it over 
in silence ; and some have sought an alternative, or modification, which 
shall make it less offensive to the proud heart. I repeat, that Paul was 
not wanting in plainness, when he wrote what some have wrested. Paul 
was no non-committal ; he had nothing to conceal, or keep back. He 
believed that truth had but one side — but one phase. Hence he said 
with Timothy, 2 Cor. 1 ; 18, "But as God is true, our word toward you 
was not yea and nay." He could see no space between truth and error, 
where he might labor, and so be on neither side. He always believed 
something, and never was afraid to declare what he did believe. I feel 
confident, that if he were alive now, he would have such a sense of fidel- 
ity to his fellow creatures, and especially to his Lord and Master, that 
he would be willing to be made again " as the filth of the world," and 
as " the offscouring of all things," rather than to be puzzling his breth- 
ren to know what he really believed ; or to state his sentiments, on the 
vital subjects of the Christian religion, in such a manner, as to be under- 
stood more than one way. 

It was a maxim among the orthodox in the early life of the writer, and 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 79 

one which he knows not how to abandon, that those who really believe 
in the distinguishing doctrines of the Bible, love to state them clearly ; 
and that they are conscientiously opposed to ambiguity and conceal- 
ment. This he must believe still, if Paul is a true representative of 
orthodoxy. They have not been wont to do what looks like throwing 
out feelers to ascertain the pulsation of the public mind, before putting 
their conjectures into a settled belief. Indeed, they believe that an 
" open bold front always ends best." There have doubtless been anti- 
Calvinists who were frank ; but to find a real Calvinist not so. would, 
in former days, have been deemed impossible. 



LETTER XVI . 

JEREMIAH, 32 ; 17, — "Ah, Lord God ! behold thou hast made the heaven and the earth by 

THY GREAT POWER AND STRETCHED-OLT ARM, AND THERE IS NOTHING TOO HARD FOR THEE." 

Verse 27. — " Behold, i am the Lord, the God of all flesh : is there any thing too hard 
for me V It is evident that in this last verse, Jehovah responded to what Jeremiah had said, 
and confirmed his declaration, " there is nothing too hard for thee." Ps. 78 ; 41. — " Yea, they 
turned back, and tempted God, and limited the holy one of israilL." 

It is entirely out of place, and dangerous for us to undertake to limit 
the power of God, except in cases in which he has expressly limited him- 
self in his word. Here, as on all other religious subjects, his word is 
our perfect rule ; and if we do not confine all our sentiments, entirely 
within the limits it prescribes, we are like the ship that has broken away 
from its moorings, is driven out of the harbor, and gone without compass 
or rudder, no one knows where. 

The Bible shows us, that God has been pleased to limit himself in two 
respects, and in no other as I can find. First, he cannot look upon ini- 
quity ; he cannot lie, or do wrong in any thing. " In hope of eternal 
life, which God that cannot lie promised before the world began." " That 
by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie." 
Secondly, God has limited himself to accomplish what he has purposed. 
"He cannot deny himself." Thus he determined to save Lot, when 
Sodom was destroyed. Accordingly he said to him, " Haste thee, es- 
cape thither : for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither." 
When it is said, (Mark 6 ; 5,) that " he could there do no mighty works, 
save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them," it is 
evident, that his inability arose from the fact, that he determined the sick 



80 LETTERS TO THE 

should come, or be brought to him, in order to be healed ; or he should 
in some way be applied to ; and in as much as the people had not faith 
enough to do thus, he of course could not heal them. These ways, in 
which Jehovah is pleased to limit himself, are of course perfectly volun- 
tary on his part ; and so far from exhibiting the least incompetency in 
him, are the glory of his character. Who does not instantly perceive, 
that such a cannot in God is essentially different from that which is said 
to originate from the "nature of things," or from any laws which are 
not entirely under his control ? As the scriptures are silent as to any 
inability in God, except what is wholly voluntary, while they are so full 
of the doctrine of his perfect ability to do everything he pleases, I think 
we are bound to understand such silence as the strongest attestation to 
his perfect competency, and of the entire falsity and audacity of all phi- 
losophical schemes or hints, however remote, which will not be subject 
to these teachings of the Bible. As surely as I believe there is a God, 
and that the scriptures are his word, so surely do I believe that he in- 
tended to make a full, sufficient revelation of himself in respect to his 
ability or inability ; and that there cannot be any thing more out of 
place, than for us to pretend that we can know more about him than his 
word teaches, and that by the wonderful march of our minds we can 
discover in him that which his word has entirely overlooked. Hence it 
is far from being & pleasant duty to call the attention of the reader to the 
following sentences in a letter from Professor Goodrich, dated Nov. 30, 
1848. — " Who will pretend that in order to assert the independence of 
God, or establish his almighty power, we must represent him as literally 
able to do every thing supposable, to dispense with a part of his attri- 
butes, or withdraw his boundless presence within the limits of a finite 
existence ? While he remains the being that he is, he must act accord- 
ing to the laws of his own nature." (Is it to be presumed that we know 
all the laws of God's nature ?) "The same is equally true, when he 
acts upon other beings. If they are to remain the beings they are, he 
must operate on them in. accordance with their nature. To affirm this in 
one case, is no more the limitation of his power, than to affirm it in the 
other. The truth is, the question of power has no relevance whatever 
to any such cases. Who would hesitate to say, that God cannot make 
a stone think ? He may destroy it and put a thinking being in its place ; 
but while it remains a stone it cannot possess the properties of thought. 
So, too, in respect to man, who has a nature, or constitution of mind, 
which makes him a moral agent. God, in operating upon him, must 
act in accordance to that nature, and the essential laws of moral agency. 
The moment these are encroached on, he ceases to be a man, and is 
changed into a different being." 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 81 

In this quotation from Professor Goodrich, we perceive he takes it for 
granted, that no one believes God can make a stone think ; and the rea- 
son is, because he cannot act upon any being or thing, contrary to the 
nature of such being or thing ; and as a stone is not a thinking being, 
God cannot make it think, without changing its nature. If this is cor- 
rect reasoning, I ask, how then came the Lord Jesus Christ to tell the 
unbelieving Pharisees, (Luke 19; 37-40) "If these should hold their 
peace the stones would immediately cry out ?" Now it is as contrary 
to the nature of a stone to cry out, as to think. Indeed, crying out 
implies thought. Would the Saviour use such language to the caviling 
Pharisees, if God was unable to do what he suggested ? Who will 
dare say that he would ? Let him say it, then, if he dares. 

Again. It is not true, that God cannot operate on a being only in con- 
formity to the laws of its nature. It is as contrary to the nature of an 
ass to speak with a man's voice, as it is for a stone to think. Yet Ba- 
laam's ass, though dumb, did speak with man's voice, and forbade the 
madness of the prophet. (2 Pet. 2 ; 16.) Neither was this animal 
changed into another being, when he reproved his master ; for the Lord 
made him say, "Am not I thine ass upon which thou hast ridden ever 
since I was thine unto this day ?" The language was not, " have I not 
been thine ass, and shall I not be again, after I have spoken with a man's 
voice." But the present tense is so used, that we must believe this an- 
imal was as really an a.ss while he was reproving his rider, as before or 
afterwards. 

I believe, therefore, that sentiments such as I have quoted from Dr. 
Goodrich, and which are maintained by others, are calculated to destroy 
all faith in miracles. Said a man of such speculation, " As it is essen- 
tial to the nature of the sun to give light, I cannot conceive that it could 
be the sun without shedding light." He was completely silenced by the 
reply, that when Jesus Christ was dying, there was darkness over all 
the land for three hours ; and we know it was not what we call an eclipse 
of the sun, it being about the full of the moon. All real believers in 
miracles, as far as I know, are unanimous in the opinion, that this dark- 
ness was a miracle. But if it is the nature of the sun to give light, and 
if God must operate upon it according to its nature, then he cannot put 
out its light, unless he changes it into something else. On this principle 
he could not work that miracle. 

As another illustration, we will notice the miracle at the Red Sea, 
when its waters were divided, till all the Israelites passed through its 
bed on dry ground. It is according to the nature of water, we all know, 
to seek a level the instant it is disturbed ; and that it is totally contrary 
to its nature " to stand as a heap." Yet we are informed, Ps. 78 ; 13, 
11 



82 LETTERS TO THE 

that this was the case, and that he, (God,) made "the waters" to do so. 
But Dr. Goodrich tells us, that when God acts upon other beings, (than 
himself,) " he must operate on them, in accordance with their nature." 
Dr. Goodrich's principles then, render it impossible even for God, to do 
what the scriptures declare was done, when the Israelites went through 
the Red sea, when they passed through Jordan forty years afterward, 
and when Elijah went through the same river, on the day he was car- 
ried to heaven in a chariot of fire. 

Take yet another illustration. We all know, that it is the nature of 
fire to destroy the bodies of men ; and that it is impossible for them, 
without a miracle, to withstand the heat of a furnace. Yet Shadrach, 
Meshech, and Abednego did withstand the violence of Nebuchadnezzar's 
furnace, though it was heated seven times hotter than common. When 
they came out, the " princes, governors, captains, and the king's coun- 
selors being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the 
fire had no power, nor was a hair of their head singed, neither were 
their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them." To 
show how great this wonder was, we are informed, that " the flame of 
the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego." 
It seems they were burned to death, by coming near enough to the fur- 
nace to cast in these three Jews. The nature of the fire, therefore, was 
not changed. Neither did these men become salamanders, when in this 
intense heat; for the king declared, that he saw " four men loose, (one 
more than was put in !) walking in the midst of the fire, and they have 
no hurt ; and the form of the fourth was like the Son of God." What 
now becomes of Dr. Goodrich's declaration, "that when he (God) ope- 
rates upon other beings, if they remain the beings they are, he must 
operate on them in accordance with their nature ?" In Webster's dic- 
tionary I find a miracle to be precisely what I was taught in my youth, 
" an event, or effect contrary to the established constitution of things, or 
deviation from the known laws of nature. Miracles can be wrought 
only by almighty power." But Dr. Goodrich says, not only, " that 
when he (God) operates upon other beings, if they remain the beings 
they are, he must operate on them in accordance with their nature ;" 
but he says u the truth is, the question of power has no relevance to 
any such cases." Nothing can be plainer than that Dr. Goodrich's 
speculations annihilate all miracles. Hence faithfulness to him, whose 
miracles I have long felt bound to defend, teaches me the painful duty 
of declaring that such speculations as Dr. Goodrich has put forth, appear 
to me to be no better than a preparatory school to open infidelity. I 
believe that already, in some parts of New England, there is such a 
mixture of New Haven speculations, Unitarianism, Swedenborgianism, 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 83 

Transcendentalism, Garrisonism, &c, that the minds of many are 
greatly confused concerning the truth of divine Revelation ; and things 
seem to be ripening for the application of the Saviour's question, 
" When the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth ?" 

Whatever may be the particular object or objects of those who are 
sending their metaphysical schemes over the country, and are trying 
experiments to see how rapid the march of mind can be, who can doubt 
that Satan also has his plan ? He must be gratified with the first lesson 
toward apostacy, which is, to have obscurity and doubt spread over the 
religious hemisphere. To see first principles called in question and un- 
settled. This is the common and direct route to heresies, infidelity and 
universal skepticism, or the history of past ages has deceived me. The 
old Gamester has been hustling things together for more than a quarter 
of a century, to prepare for the great question again, concerning the 
sufficiency of human reason, though in a more subtle manner than for- 
merly. Formerly, infidelity assumed, that human reason supercedes 
the necessity of a divine revelation. Modern speculations claim, that 
though there is a necessity for a divine revelation, it is within the prov- 
ince of reason to decide, what that revelation must be. To such yield- 
ing to the sufficiency of human reason, Satan and all his hosts will say, 
Amen. When I perceive the fondness of some to expose their extreme 
ignorance of our infinite God, I would that each of them might feel as 
Job did, when the Lord said to him in the midst of a terrific whirlwind, 
" Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? declare 
if thou hast understanding." By such a discipline our modern know- 
ing ones might be led to say as Job did at that time, " Wherefore I abhor 
myself and repent in dust and ashes." 

According to Dr. Goodrich, Jehovah must act upon material things, 
according to the nature of material things ; and he must act upon mind 
according to the essential laws of mind or moral agency. We will now 
turn our attention to this limitation of Jehovah in relation to moral agen- 
cy. How then are moral agents governed ? According to New Divin- 
ity, if governed at all, they must be governed by whatever influences 
bear upon their minds to persuade them. Such influences, I believe, 
are summed up in motives. As the mind is governed by motives, it is 
said that moral influence consists in presenting motives to the mind in 
the most convincing manner. It is eloquence. Thus, one of this way of 
thinking has said, that if he had the eloquence of the Holy Spirit, he 
could convert sinners as well as the Spirit ! 

Let us now see how this doctrine will apply to the authority of Christ 
over the fallen spirits, and to that authority over them, which he has 
delegated to his people. No one I believe will doubt, that these fallen 



84 LETTERS TO THE 

spirits are moral agents. According to New Divinity it must have been 
simply eloquence, the art of persuasion, by which Christ and his disci- 
ples cast out devils. This is the only way in which even God can gain 
influence over them, according to Dr. Goodrich. He does not consider 
the question of power to have any relevance to such cases. It is said, 
" that power cannot apply to mind, any more than motive to matter." 
In Mat. 8, it appears that two men possessed with devils met the Sav- 
iour — that the evil spirits " cried out," and said, " art thou come to 
torment us before the time ?" And they "besought him, saying, if thou 
cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." It seems as 
though the devils were very reluctant to leave the men, but they ex- 
pected to be cast out. They were not yet persuaded to go, but they ex- 
pected they must be persuaded, according to New Divinity, simply by 
the eloquence of Christ. They were in trouble, lest they should be 
■persuaded to depart ; and as though they expected to be persuaded in 
spite of themselves, they chose to be sent into the swine. If thou cast 
us out. This is rather unusual language, when according to New Divin- 
ity, nothing more was intended, than persuading them to leave the two 
men who were possessed. It sounds a little like power though applied 
to mind. Probably the devils did not understand the language of moral 
philosophy of religion. We read, " Resist the devil, and he will flee 
from you." On the New Divinity principle, there can be no way to 
resist him but by our eloquence ; and by his fleeing from us, nothing 
more is intended than that we persuade him to believe he had better go 
off in a hurry. 

In the case of an angel whom John saw come down from heaven, 
having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand ; the 
improvements in theological science teach us, that he will lay hold on 
the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and 
will bind him, will cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, 
and set a seal upon him, and keep him there a thousand years — all by 
moral suasion. 

If a man would not render himself ridiculous, he had better be a 
little cautious about limiting the Almighty, in order to show how much 
he knows himself. And what if some should come clear down to Jere- 
miah's modesty and respectfulness of God, when he said in prayer to 
him, "There is nothing too hard for thee ;" instead of assuming to be the 
umpires of the universe, and asserting what God can do, and what he 
cannot do in relation to what he would do if he could ; what is his duty 
to do, what is impossible in the nature of things for him to do, so that 
to suppose he could do so and so, would be a contradiction of terms, the 
same as to suppose that two and two are not four ? The prophet, it 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 85 

seems, has given the highest idea we can conceive of the independence 
and almighty power of God. I can hardly believe that Jeremiah had 
adopted Dr. Goodrich's philosophy, when he said, " nothing is too 
hard for thee." 

I have mentioned in my fourteenth Letter, that though Dr. Goodrich 
stated that he had answered every argument in my printed Letter to the 
Professors, he did not attempt to explain five passages of scripture, 
which I presented together as proof of Jehovah's supreme independence. 
1 really thought, that there was something like argument here for Dr. 
Goodrich to answer, if he could, and I think so still. The passages are 
these. "But our God is in the heavens ; he hath done whatsoever he 
pleased." " Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, in 
earth, in the sea and all deep places." " And he doeth according to his 
will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth ; 
and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what doest thou ?" " De- 
claring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things 
that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all 
my pleasure." "In whom we also have obtained an inheritance, being 
predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will." 

If Dr. Goodrich had not withdrawn all intercourse with me in rela- 
tion to the subjects of debate, I should really love to have him explain 
these texts. And if he should do it, 1 should want that he should ex- 
plain many more of the same class. And even if he should do all this, 
in conformity to his philosophy, I should have one more text still for his 
consideration, Isa. 8 ; 21. "To the law and the testimony; if they 
speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." 

Though I must not attempt to communicate any more with Dr. Good- 
rich, yet I hope he will learn in some indirect way, that up to the pres- 
ent time, (Nov. 1850,) I have as much respect for the plain declarations 
of God's word as for his philosophy, and a little more. The five texts 
just quoted, are far from being the only ones with which I vindicated my 
sentiments in my printed letter, against those of the theological Profes- 
sors, and of which Dr. Goodrich has taken no notice, though he says 
he has answered every argument in that book. But let us look at this a 
moment. Among the numerous texts which I advanced to prove the 
perfectly independent supremacy of God, there was one which Dr. 
Goodrich contended did not apply. He labored hard to prove that it 
was not to my purpose. It seems then, that he found as he thought an 
argument against my views in this one passage. But he sees no argu- 
ment in my favor, from those five passages which I quoted together, and 
from various others ; for he is silent as death in relation to them — he 



86 



LETTERS TO THE 



dares not grapple with them, and yet pretends there is no argument in 
them. In all this, Dr. Goodrich convinces me that his hold upon the 
word of God is very slender whenever it comes in contact with his pre- 
conceived notions — with that philosophy which is back of his theology," 
so slender as to shock and alarm every consistent believer in the scrip- 
tures as the infallible rule of faith. In former times quotations from 
the Bible were treated with great respect. They were supposed to 
mean something ; yea, if not more than one text was pertinently adduc- 
ed, its authority was considered paramount to all the schemes and rea- 
sonings of men. But now Jive passages taken from different parts of 
the word of God mean nothing in Dr. Goodrich's estimation, or at least 
so little, as to be beneath notice. On the same principle, fifty or five 
hundred texts may be passed over as unworthy of consideration. And 
it should be added, according to the plan of himself and colleagues, the 
opinion of one is the opinion of the whole. This is clear from the fact, 
that Dr. Goodrich makes no objection to the following declaration, in my 
published Letter to the Professors, pages 50 and 51. "By setting your 
names as you have, I consider that you have endorsed for each other, 
and that your peculiarities, whether subject to praise or censure, are to 
be viewed as joint stock." Such glaring disregard of the authority of 
God's word, if not contempt cast upon it, is enough to make every real 
believer in the Bible, who is not a coward, protest against it. This I 
do, though my effort be as feeble as " Priam's dart," I protest against 
such disregard of the word of God, as one of the ingredients of a skep- 
tical, slippery, ho: d winking, scripture-repudiating, awfully irreverent 
theology. A theology, which attempts to shun the cross of true sub- 
mission to the will of God, and hopes to ride to heaven on ' Dr. Taylor's 
supposition.' (See Letter VIII.) It is a theology, which I expect soon 
to show sets aside a large class of texts, containing the essential and 
glorious doctrine of power applied to mind, in the conversion and sanctifi- 
cation of men ; and has the audacity to invent a regeneration, because 
forsooth the regeneration which the Lord Jesus Christ preached, cannot 
keep pace with the thundering " march of mind" in these days. Yes, 
these are days of the terrific tread of " giant" mind, when divine 
truth must either fall into the rear, or stand out of the way, or be 
crushed. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 87 



LETTER XVII. 

MATTHEW, 22; 29. — "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of god." 

Nothing detects error like the sacred scriptures. No wonder that 
errorists shun or pervert them. Indeed this is one of the great objects 
for which God has been pleased to give them to us : and only let them 
speak their own language, unshackled by vain philosophy, or interested 
criticisms and special pleadings, and they will conduct us to the haven 
of truth. I never knew but one way to study and teach them. We 
must approach them as God's word, and compare them together, to ascer- 
tain their general import, the design and scope of the writers, and how 
words and phrases are to be used. This is the way children are taught, 
or should be, in Sabbath Schools ; and the higher schools in Christian 
theology should simply carry out this mode of studying them. There 
is no new philosophy to learn — no new lexicon to study — no uncommon 
use of language. The scriptures were designed for all classes of 
people ; for the illiterate as well as for the learned ; and with honest 
hearts, " wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." This is 
a summary view of that method of studying and teaching the Bible, in 
which I have been established ; and if I am yet a novice on the subject, 
I am one in my grey hairs, and expect to remain so till " I quit this 
mortal stage." 

But one of the Newtons in the improvements of theological science 
has made the wonderful discovery, as I have learned in a letter, 
an extract of which is now before me, that " We all have a philosophy 
back of our theology." This must mean, that our philosophy is 
the center or starting place of truth in us, to which our knowledge of 
theology from all other sources must submit ; and it must of course be 
the final umpire to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. 
This is one form of infidelity. Not that form, however, which rejects 
the authority of the Bible from the first. So far from it, it professes to 
believe in and to vindicate the truth of the sacred writings. It decides 
not against them, either as a whole, or in part, except as they occasion- 
ally come in contact with the previously formed notions of philosophy. 
Then this philosophy, which is only another name for reason, assumes 
its authority over every other consideration. This is the most danger- 
ous form of infideli'y, because the most subtle and unsuspected. The 



88 LETTERS TO THE 

fruits of it may be seen in the efforts made so to change the use of 
language as to reconcile the Bible to this philosophy, which is said to 
be hack of theology in mankind. 

I would remark in this place, that when I speak of theologians' act- 
ing, in certain cases, on infidel principles, I do not intend to be under- 
stood as deciding against their piety, for it is entirely unknown to me 
how far good men may be deluded. But while T gladly plead igno- 
rance on this point, it is my determination to call things by their right 
names according to my understanding of them. I hold to definitions 
myself, and intend to hold others to them. 

The idea of power in God over his moral creation has been very 
afflicting to some theologians. They have thought that such an idea 
is inconsistent with free agency. This, I presume, is the reason why 
Dr. Goodrich and others have insisted that power cannot apply to mind. 
This idea is so contrary to the scriptures, that when it was first circu- 
lated, I thought it impossible for any to believe it, who had ever been 
established in the faith. Power was denned to be physical force ; and 
that such as applied it to religion were guilty of pretending that God 
drew sinners up to heaven against their wills, &c. But a litile atten- 
tion to what the scriptures declare on this subject will show how false is 
the wisdom of man. Matthew, 10 ; 1. — "And when he had called 
unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean 
spirits to cast them out." Luke, 9 ; 1. — " Then he called his twelve 
disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils." 
It has already been noticed, that the fallen spirits are moral agents — all 
mind. Now since Christ gave his disciples power against them and over 
them, what becomes of the assertion, that the idea of power is not rele- 
vant in the case 1 These passages of scripture are sufficient to 
convince any one, who does not put philosophy above the word, that 
power is not necessarily physical force, and that it is applied to mind 
by the inspired writers, as well as to what is material. 

Colossians, 1 ; 13, — " Who hath delivered us from the power of 
darkness." Did it not require power to deliver these Colossians/rowi 
power 1 Acts, 26 ; 18. — " To open their eyes, and to turn them from 
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." Ah ! 
does Satan, then, a spiritual being — all mind, possess power ? Yes : he 
is a powerful being, and to be dreaded on this account. Certainly, in 
this case, power is applied to mind. 

Psalms, 109 ; 3. — " Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy 
power." The power of God, therefore, so far from taking away 
free agency, and turning men into machines, as some pretend, is the 
very thing and the only thing which makes them willing to do what God 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 89 

requires of them. And if those I am opposing are ever saved, it must 
be by the operation of that power which they deny. Power is applied 
to mind — to the will. There never was, and there never will be, 
an acceptable prayer offered to God for the conversion of sinners, 
which is not in accordance with this sentiment, vain philosophy to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

1 Corinthians, 2; 5. — "That your faith should not stand in the wis- 
dom of men, but in the power of God." The faith of Christians does 
not stand upon the influence of men's wisdom on the understanding, nor 
on physical force upon the body ; but upon the power of God upon the 
heart." 

2 Corinthians, 4 ; 7. — " But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, 
that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." We 
are here taught, that it is power which gives success to the ministry of 
the word ; all success consisting of course in convicting, converting and 
sanctifying men — that this power is of God — that he takes special care 
to convince the world that it is power, and his own power, in distinction 
from, and above, all instrumentality, which gives saving efficacy to the 
word. And it is not only God's power, but the excellency of power, as 
the inspired apostle thought. Now all the power in this text, as well as 
in those noticed before, and in those yet to be noticed, applies to mind. 

Ephesians, 1; 19. — "And what is the exceeding greatness of his 
power to us ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty 
power." This remarkable passage describes the glorious efficiency of 
God as producing in the Ephesians, all their elevated hopes of heaven ; 
and in point of greatness, the power which wrought in them, is com. 
pared to that which raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I say in point 
of greatness ; for it is admitted, that the glorious power which raised 
Christ from the dead was directed in part to what was corporeal. But 
it is mentioned as illustrative of an equally glorious efficiency called 
power, which was exerted on the hearts of the Ephesians, to raise 
them to spiritual life. This blessed efficiency of Jehovah in quicken- 
ing the Ephesians from spiritual death, and in causing them to sit 
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, is not only called power, 
but the exceeding greatness of power, and according to the working of his 
mighty power. On this passage Scott very justly remarks : " It is 
remarkable that the aposile seems here studiously to have exhausted 
the utmost vigor of the Greek language, to express, by a beautiful 
accumulation of the most energetic words, the omnipotence of God as 
effecting the believer's conversion, in continuing, as it were, that exer- 
cise of it by which the Redeemer was raised from the dead." Thus 
far Scott. But the wonderful improvements in what some call theolog- 
12 



90 



LETTERS TO THE 



ical science, spurn the idea, not only of Omnipotence, but of any power 
from God in the work of conversion and sanctification. If there were 
no other passage of scripture to condemn all such schemes, their 
condemnation would be complete, and sealed forever. 

Ephesians, 3 ; 7. — " Wherein I was made a minister, according 
to the gift of the grace of God given unto me, by the effectual working 
of his power." The apostle here evidently refers to his own conver- 
sion, with which, every reader of the Bible is acquainted. Verse 20 : 
" Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that 
we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us." Paul 
here refers to the religious experience both of himself and the Ephe- 
sians. It was power working in them. 

Ephesians, 6 ; 10. — " Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, 
and in the power of his might." What sense could we find in this 
exhortation, if God did not work on the minds of believers by his 
power ? Equally unintelligible would, in this case, be the following 
instruction. Colossians, 1 ; 11 : "Strengthened with all might accord- 
ing to his glorious power, unto all patience and long- suffering with joy- 
fulness." 

Romans, 15; 13. — "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and 
peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the power of 
the Holy Ghost." Hope is an exercise of the heart of a free agent, 
and the power of the Holy Ghost gives it. Does this power destroy free 
agency, and turn Christians into machines? Romans, 16 ; 25 : " Now 
to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel." Why 
does Paul speak of the power of God to establish Christians, if power 
is not applied to mind ? Can Christians be established in religion with- 
out their minds ? 

2 Thessalonians, 1 ; 11. — " Wherefore also we pray always for you, 
that our God would count you worthy of his calling, and fulfill all the 
good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power." 
Here we are unequivocally taught, that the faith of believers is the 
effect of God's power. 

1 Peter, 1 ; 5. — " Who are kept by the power of God through faith 
unto salvation." How ungrateful and ignorant we must be, if we deny 
that it is God's power which keeps us from apostasy ! 

2 Peter, 1 ; 3. — " According as his divine power hath given unto us 
all things that pertain unto life and godliness." The life here brought 
to view is spiritual and eternal life. Godliness means piety, holiness — 
such a character as God approves, a character which is made up 
of parts, such as repentance — love to God — faith in Christ — humility — 
submission — a delight in the cause of Christ, and in the observance of 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 91 

all the institutions of his word — love to his people — love to the souls of 
all mankind — conscientiousness in all things — zeal — perseverance — 
patience — meekness — forbearance — watchfulness, and a course of liv- 
ing in all things and at all times, which proves that the soul is born of 
God, and an heir of glory. Indeed, every good thing which is found in 
the Christian, both in this life and in heaven, is the effect of God's 
power working in him. 

More passages of scripture still might be adduced, to show the truth 
of the doctrine under consideration. But more have been already 
brought forward, than are sufficient to prove that power is not always 
physical force ; and that it applies to mind, if the Bible is true : and 
the reason why so large a selection is made at this time is because 
Christians love to dwell upon the theme. They know that if God does 
not work in them by his power, they are undone forever. How it 
awakens their gratitude, faith, hope and religious joy, to think upon the 
infinite kindness of God, in working in them by his divine power both 
to will and to do, of his good pleasure. 

How lamentable then, that men who profess to love and teach the 
word of God should boldly deny some of its plainest and sweetest 
truths, because they do not support a philosophy which claims no 
higher authority than human invention ! Such a first stride is, in my 
opinion, greater and more daring, in one who professes to teach the 
Bible, than the next from it would be, to deny the authority of all that 
sacred book. If philosophy is daring enough to attack one plain 
doctrine of divine revelation, it is daring enough to attack another, and 
another, till what we have been wont to call a revelation from heaven, 
will possess no authority or interest above that of an old almanac. 

I here feel it my duty to state some facts which came within my 
knowledge many years ago. At the time of the great revolution 
in France near the close of the last century, the corrupt principles of 
that nation became quite common in some parts of the country. In 
that portion of Massachusetts where I then resided, otherwise respecta- 
ble families kept Thomas Paine's Age of Reason among their daily 
reading books. Young people in their parties would sneer at the Bible 
as a false and useless book ; and some, to make sport for the rest, 
would mock the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The ministers of 
Mendon Association became greatly alarmed at the prevalence and 
boldness of infidelity, and published a treatise on the Necessity and 
Truth of Divine Revelation. (The writers were said to be the Rev. 
Nathaniel Emmons, of Franklin, the Rev. Caleb Alexander, of Mendon, 
and the Rev. John Crane, of Northbridge.) Some of the freethinkers 
of those days were men of information, and acute reasoners. The 



92 



LETTERS TO THE 



scenes I then witnessed are painfully fresh in my memory ; and I can 
have no doubt, that if those believers in Thomas Paine had learned the 
denial of God's power in the face of so large a class of texts as I have 
quoted in this letter ; if they had seen that paragraph which I quoted 
and endeavored to confute in my last letter ; if they had known the 
management of the famous supposition ; if they had understood how 
God must be treated in the improvements of theological science, as 
well as some other things which this series of Letters discloses, they 
would have set the whole down as the triumphs of infidelity, and would 
have chuckled at the mortification, which the sober believers in the 
Bible must have felt. Who will wonder, then, that I have been aston- 
ished and ashamed that old Puritan Connecticut, where it has been 
thought so much knowledge of the subtleties and curse of infidelity has 
existed, will keep some of the most reckless speculators at the head of 
their " school of the prophets," to qualify our choice young men to 
become — what ! Why to become champions in the defence of the 
Christian religion ! Set supposition-mongers to be the great advocates 
of God's eternal truth ; of that word of his which " is forever settled in 
heaven !" How can I believe that the Bible is safe in such hands 1 I 
cannot, let who will find fault with me. And I say further, that the 
cause of Christianity in general, and of personal religion in particular, 
has suffered immensely, for the want of such plain dealing. I will not 
silently see my religion, my Bible, and my God betrayed by the miser- 
able arts and wanton tricks of "fleshly wisdom." Shame on it ! 



LETTER XVIII . 

PROV. 30; 6. — "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be 

FOUND A LIAR." 

From this passage and that which we find in Rev. 22; 18, 19, we 
are most solemnly warned to set ourselves as far removed as possible, 
from saying any thing, which may have the least appearance of adding 
to, or taking from, what God has revealed in his holy word. It is not 
enough, that our words do not expressly add to, or take from, what God 
has spoken. We should be extremely cautious to say nothing, which, 
by a necessary implication, or fair inference, may be understood to ex- 
pose ourselves, in either respect, to Jehovah's awful censure. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 93 

Whoever reads the Bible with attention, may perceive, that all the 
leading doctrines of Divine Revelation, though brought to view in many- 
places, are so expressed, as that some one passage or more, on each of 
these doctrines, is so clearly and comprehensively stated, as to form 
the center to which other passages on the same general subject, point. 
Thus in our meditations on the doctrine of the atonement, though brought 
to view in very many places, we turn our attention specially to Rom., 
latter part of the third chapter, where this glorious doctrine is more 
clearly, and comprehensively stated, than can be found in so few words 
any where else in the Bible. The two most important places, where 
the doctrine of Justification by Faith is discussed, are the fourth chapter 
of Romans, and the third of Galatians. In the eleventh chapter of 
Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, there is a more important description giv- 
en of the power of Faith as a christian grace, than can be found in any 
other place in the Bible. Though so much is said about love in various 
places, the thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, gives 
the most extraordinary description of it by the term charity. As to the 
doctrine of Regeneration, though clearly brought to view in many places 
of the divine word, yet it is more definitely stated in the third chapter 
of the gospel according to John, and first twelve verses, than any where 
else in the sacred scriptures. No doubt Nicodemus wished to receive 
the instructions of Christ ; but like many since, who have desired that 
others might not know, that they were inquirers, he came to Jesus by 
night. In his address to Christ he took pains to give him a fair opportu- 
nity to select what subject he pleased. Without any introduction, the 
Saviour entered upon the doctrine of Regeneration, giving it a free dis- 
cussion, and answering the objections of Nicodemus. The impressions, 
therefore, which are instantly received by reading this discourse of 
Christ, are the true impressions ; and our mistakes on the subject must 
of course be studied, willful mistakes. 

It is a painful duty, which, if I am not much mistaken, I owe the 
Christian public, to show the astonishing difference between the doctrine 
of Regeneration as stated by the Lord Jesus, and as stated by the Rev. 
Nathaniel W. Taylor, D. D., Professor of Didactic Theology in Yale 
College. In order to give the reader a fair view of the case, it is most 
convenient to place what the Saviour says, and what Dr. Taylor says, 
in opposite columns. 



94 



LETTERS TO THE 



JOHN, CHAPTER III. 
" There was a man of the Phar- 
isees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of 
the Jews. 

2. The same came to Jesus by- 
night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we 
know that thou art a teacher come 
from God ; for no man can do 
these miracles, that thou doest, ex- 
cept God be with him. 

3. Jesus answered and said un- 
to him, Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, except a man be born again, ! 
he cannot see the kingdom of God. 

4. Nicodemus saith unto him, i 
How can a man be born when he j 
is old ? can he enter the second j 
time into his mother's womb, and 
be born ? 

5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily 
I say unto thee, Except a man be ; 
born of water and of the Spirit, he ! 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God 

6. That which is born of the 
flesh is flesh ; and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit. 

7. Marvel not that I said unto 
thee, Ye must be born again. 

8. The wind bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou nearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
cometh, or whither it goeth : so is 
every one that is born of the Spirit. 

9. Nicodemus answered and said 
unto him, How can these things be? 

10. Jesus answered and said unto 
him, Art thou a master of Israel, 
and knowest not these things ? 

11. Verily, verily I say unto 
thee, We speak that we do know, 
and testify that we have seen ; and 
ye receive not our witness. 

12. If I have told you earthly 
things, and ye believe not, how 
shall ye believe, if I tell you of 
heavenly things ?" 

The reader of the Bible cannot 
fail to perceive that the other pass- 
ages which bring to view the doc- 
trine of Regeneration, agree with 
the above representation of Christ. 
Take for examples John 1 ; 13. 
Titus 3 ; 5. James 1 ; 18. 



DR. TAYLOR. 
" Let the sinner then as a being 
who loves happiness, and desires 
the highest degree of it, under the 
influence of such desire, take into 
solemn consideration the question, 
whether the highest happiness is to 
be found in God or the world ; let 
him pursue this inquiry, if need be, 
till it results in the conviction that 
such happiness is to be found in 
God only ; and let him follow up 
this conviction with that intent 
and engrossing contemplation of the 
realities which truth discloses, and 
with that stirring up of his sensibil- 
ities in view of them, which invest 
the world, when considered as his 
only portion, with an aspect of in- 
significance, gloom and even terror, 
and which shall chill and suspend 
the present love of it ; and let the 
contemplation be persevered in, till 
it shall discover a reality and excel- 
lence in the objects of holy affec- 
tion, which shall put him upon di- 
rect and desperate efforts to fix his 
heart upon them ; and let this pro- 
cess of thought, of effort, and of 
action be entered upon as the one 
that is never to be abandoned, until 
the end proposed by it be accom- 
plished — until the only living and 
true God is loved and chosen as his 
God forever ; and we say, that in 
this way the work of regeneration, 
through grace, may be accomplish- 
ed." — Christian Spectator, 1829, 
p. p. 32, 33. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 95 

Who does not perceive, instantly, in reading these two columns, that 
in point of sentiment they bear no resemblance to each other? The 
Saviour's account of Regeneration ascribes the work exclusively to 
God. Dr. Taylor proposes that man should do it, and shows us how ! 
It is true, that at the close of the paragraph he speaks of grace ; but he 
does not inform us where it comes in, or what it does. Consequently 
we are left to the conclusion, that there is no more grace in the means 
of Regeneration, as it is called, than in our transactions about the com- 
mon business of life. But even this is not the most startling feature in 
this shocking paragraph. Regeneration is the change from the state of 
nature to the state of grace ; and is believed, by all Calvinists, to be an 
instantaneous work. Or, according to the scriptures, it is more proper 
to say, it belongs to no time. Our Saviour declares, " He that is not 
with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth 
abroad." It is perfectly clear, therefore, that there is no time to be 
calculated upon, when a person is not either in a converted state, or un- 
converted state ; when he is not either in a state of nature, or a state of 
grace ; when he is not born of the flesh, or born of the Spirit. The ex- 
ercises of the heart are quick as thought ; and there is no conceivable 
space of time between them. The last exercise of the impenitent sin- 
ner is a sinful exercise, and the first exercise of the penitent is a holy 
exercise. In his last impenitent exercise he was against Christ ; but in 
his first penitent exercise he is for him. This is the meaning of the 
Saviour in the passage quoted. He has left no possible time for us to 
fill up by what some call "the means of Regeneration." All such 
notions are entirely out of book. God has revealed nothing on the sub- 
ject. He has left no space for men to build theories upon ; and it is as 
completely the invention of men, as the doctrine of purgatory. How 
strange, how lamentable, that such a view of Regeneration as is found 
on the right hand column, should ever have been laid before our eyes, 
as truth to be believed ! Totally disregarding the plain declarations of 
Christ, " He that is not for me is against me," the author pretends that 
there is an intermediate state, sufficient for a process of several mental 
changes, and to " be persevered in." Indeed, one is left to the conjec- 
ture, that a long time must elapse for the sinner to perform, what, if 
Christspeaks the truth, belongs to no time. And after this perseverance 
to discover, that happiness is to be found in God, rather than in the 
World ; after following up this conviction by an intense a contemplation 
of the realities which truth discloses ;" after "stirring up his sensibil- 
ities in view of them ;" after he has so exerted himself as to suspend 
his selfish principle ; then he must put himself " upon direct and des- 
perate efforts to fix his heart upon" — " the objects of holy affection," 



96 



LETTERS TO THE 



which he had previously discovered ; and he must now " let this process 
of thought, of effort, and of action, be entered upon as the one never to 
be abandoned." If this is not adding to the word of God, what can be ? 
There is no doctrine of Revelation more fully and circumstantially 
stated and explained, than the doctrine of Regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit. The creeds of all evangelical denominations, make Regenera- 
tion a part of the official work of the Holy Ghost. For this, as well as 
for the succeeding sanctification of believers, this gracious Agent has 
been sent into the world as the fruit of the Saviour's death. Hence all 
this talk about sinners converting themselves, seems to me like a pre- 
tense that man can take the official work of the Holy Ghost out of his 
hands, and put him entirely on the back-ground. Indeed it is a decla- 
ration that he is not needed, if man will only do his duty. How such 
sentiments look, beside the long quotation in John already made, and be- 
side the following scripture. " Which were born, not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God !" How is it 
possible, that any one who has experienced a change of heart by the 
Holy Spirit, can trifle with it to such a degree ? 

It is an interesting question, what has induced any Christians to take 
such ground ? The correct answer, I believe is this : Some adopt it as 
an invariable maxim, that we are naturally able to do whatever God re- 
quires of us. In other words, natural ability and obligation always go 
together. Hence it is said, that it is a charge against the goodness of 
God to pretend that he ever requires any one to do what he has no natural 
ability to accomplish. Therefore he must have natural ability to be- 
come holy. I can but notice in this, the immensely evil consequences 
of adopting maxims on religious subjects independently of the Bible. 
One entertains the notion that something must be true, or false, as the 
case may be ; and, therefore, he does not even think of what the scrip- 
tures say on the subject. But how different would be the result, if he 
had suspended his judgment till he had been sure of finding what God 
says in his word. Ex. 8 ; 5. " And the Lord spake unto Moses, say 
unto Aaron, stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over 
the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land 
of Egypt." Now Aaron had no more natural ability to cause frogs to 
come up, than we have. Yet God commanded him to do it. But is not 
God a good Being ? Ex. 14 ; 10. Here the Lord commanded Moses, 
" But lift thou up thy rod and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and 
divide it." Reader, what natural ability had Moses more than you to 
divide the sea? Math. 10; 8. Christ commanded his disciples, " Heal 
the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils." Had the 
disciples any natural power to do these things ? Now any one of these 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 97 

three cases is sufficient to destroy the maxim, that natural ability and 
obligation must always go together. We have, therefore, no right to 
conclude for certainty, that we have natural ability to become holy, be- 
cause God requires us to be holy. Will it here be said, that Aaron, and 
Moses, and the disciples, had a right to believe, from what God had pre- 
viously said, that he would enable them to perform the miracles which 
he had commanded them to perform ? True. And all have a right to 
believe that God, by his grace, will enable them to become holy, by 
what he has said to them. Luke 11; 13. " If ye then being evil, 
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall 
your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." Deu. 
4 ; 29. " If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, then thou 
shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." 
Ps. 104 ; 4. " Seek the Lord and his strength, seek his face evermore." 
Now the fact, that God allows and requires all to seek his aid for spirit- 
ual good, (as he often does in his word,) is a demonstration, that there 
is some inability in us in relation to the attainment of such good ; espe- 
cially as he expressly requires us to inquire of him to do these things for 
us. See Eze. 36 ; 25-37. 

Again. That there is obligation where there is not ability, is evident 
in cases in which men wickedly destroy their ability, and such cases 
are very numerous in this depraved world. No one finds fault with our 
statutes, which make a man responsible for the injurious acts he commits 
in a state of insanity, if it can be proved that his insanity is occasioned 
by drunkenness. Here obligation outlives ability. The same is true in 
all cases, where men put their property out of their hands to cheat their 
creditors. No matter how fraudulent the debtor may be. No matter 
how many widows and fatherless he has made beggars. He had all 
they were worth in his hands. But he wanted to live on their earnings 
himself; so he contrived to put all he held into the hands of one like 
himself, and in such a way as effectually to debar his creditors from re- 
ceiving their due ; and now according to the doctrine I am opposing, his 
obligation has ceased with his ability, and of course he is as honest as 
those whom he has cheated out of all they possessed. 

The scriptural account of the punishment of the wicked in the future 

world, clearly proves that obligation remains after all ability is done. 

Math. 25. The direction concerning him who did not improve his one 

talent, is in these words, — verses 28-30. " Take therefore the talent 

from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every 

one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance ; but from 

him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath. And 

cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness ; there shall be 

13 



98 LETTERS TO THE 

weeping and gnashing of teeth." At the commencement of this parable 
it is said that the man gave to one of his servants " five talents, to another 
two, and to another one ; to every man according to his several ability." 
Now when the talent was taken away from the man who had the one 
talent, his ability was taken away ; and yet he is punished, by being 
put into outer darkness. If his obligation ceased with his ability, his 
punishment would be unjust. So it will be in relation to the punish- 
ment of all the wicked in the future world, if their obligations cease 
when their ability ceases. 

Reader, as strange as it may seem, if you will but carefully examine, 
you will find it true, that some of the most exceptionable things in New 
Divinity are put forth on this groundless anti-scriptural assumption, that 
ability and obligation always go together. It is on this assumption, that 
no one can be a free agent, unless he has the power of contrary choice 
to the extent that he can regenerate himself. " Moral agents can do 
wrong, (and of course can do right,) under all possible preventing influ- 
ence." It is further said, that " no one can prove but that what may be, 
will be." Now in order to carry out this baseless scheme, Dr. Taylor 
has found it necessary to add, from his own authority, what he calls 
" the means of regeneration ;" and has attempted to throw on to man the 
wprk, which Christ has solemnly declared, with his own lips, belongs to 
the Holy Spirit. If such be the result of studying the nature of free 
agency, I pray that all may be content hereafter to learn what it is, 
simply by their own consciousness ; and I have no doubt that it can be 
understood in this way, for all practical purposes, far better than any 
philosopher can teach it with his rules. 

The reader will further recollect, that New Divinity makes the free 
agency of man more unlimited than the free agency of God. " Moral 
agents," by whom it seems creatures are exclusively intended, " can 
do wrong under all possible preventing influence." Not so with God. 
' He cannot look upon iniquity.' " It is impossible for God to lie." 
What shall New Divinity do in this dilemma ? Its only subterfuge 
seems to be that we must not argue from the infinite to the finite. What ! 
are not the essential principles of moral agency the same in all moral 
agents? This suggestion is just as wise as it would be to pretend that 
we must not argue from the infinite to the finite respecting the nature of 
understanding, or of any other mental faculty, which is universally 
acknowledged to be common to both God and man. 

The credence, which the speculations of the New Haven Professors 
have gained, in the country, is a remarkable instance of the influence 
of human authority. If such speculations had been put forth at first by 
strangers, in some remote place, I believe the authors of them would 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



99 



have been considered so wildly erratic, as to be the objects of pity, 
rather than of commendation, by a Bible-reading community. But the 
Theological Professors at New Haven came into office in circumstances 
the most favorable to gain the confidence of the Christian public. There 
had been many years of remarkable peace and prosperity in our Zion. 
The Professors were introduced into office by those, who had long en- 
joyed public confidence. There was no general suspicion, if any, that 
the newly appointed Professors were dissatisfied with what was then 
known to be the orthodoxy of Connecticut. It was taken for granted, 
that they would contemplate no improvements in theology, but such as 
could be made by studying the Bible, and not speculative philosophy. 
No one dreamed, that they would resort to the framing of such hypo- 
thetical schemes, as would call in question that unlimitedness in God, in 
which the ministers and churches in the state had most certainly be- 
lieved, and which, the Confession of Faith, so readily signed by the Pro- 
fessors, holds forth in the most plain and forcible language. Under 
these peculiar circumstances it might not be very strange, that so?ne few 
men, of a peculiar temperament, should be thrown off their guard for a 
season, and experience a struggle in their minds before they could give 
up all the fascinations of worldly wisdom, so congenial to the proud 
heart. But it was not to be expected that so many professedly Bible 
students would suffer themselves to become the proselytes and advocates 
of the most extravagant and daring things to be found in the Professors' 
speculations. If my memory serves me, I have seen in print, attempts 
to advocate the denial of God's power, which the scriptures make so es- 
sential to the conversion and sanctification of man. If my memory 
serves me, I have seen that horrible caricature, rather mockery, of the 
sacred doctrine of regeneration, advocated in print, with the unscrupu- 
lous boldness of adding to God's holy words. If I were caught in this 
snare of human authority, and could not break it, I know not how I 
could blame the Roman Catholics for their servile adherence to the 
priests. What a curious effect, also, such man- worship has upon those 
to whom it is paid ! In my correspondence with Dr. Goodrich, I stated 
my views of the scriptures on certain points, which differed from his. 
He attempted to reply to them, and one of his objections was, that I dif- 
fered, as he thought, from all others on the subject. As Dr. Goodrich 
seems to think that I must not hazard an opinion without human author- 
ity to support it, how came he to set up his hypothetical schemes as the 
standard of truth, before the public knew what they were ? If we must 
know what others will think of our views before we proclaim them, we 
must wait forever. But Dr. Goodrich probably thought, that in his cir- 
cumstances, others would believe in him, advance what he might, though 



100 LETTERS TO THE 

an obscure pastor must hazard no opinion, which public sentiment has 
not already sanctioned. If, with the word of God in my hands, the 
question must be, whether others must think for me, or whether I shall 
think for myself, I must take the latter course, if I stand alone. If the 
old question of Protestantism, which I had thought was long ago settled, 
must come up again, " Whether the scriptures are the only and suffi- 
cient rule of faith and practice," I must decide in the affirmative, if I 
stand alone. Hence if the question be, which is the highest authority, 
the Bible, or the hypothetical speculations of men ; I must say, the 
Bible, if I stand alone. If the question be, whether the fundamental 
doctrines of God's word are to be received as positive truths, or whether 
they must be modified, and softened, and made doubtful by suppositions, 
I must declare for positive truth, if I stand alone. My mind cannot thrive 
by living on suppositions, any better than on other kinds of fiction. If 
the question be, whether I shall be satisfied with the doctrine of regen- 
eration as the Lord Jesus Christ taught it, or whether I shall adopt the 
new one, made by Dr. Taylor, and recommended by himself and others, 
I shall believe in the Saviour's regeneration, if I stand alone ; for if I 
cherish the one of modern date, made by man, I fear I shall be reproved 
by my righteous Judge and found to be a liar by adding to his words. 
The Mormons have as good authority for their new Bible as Dr. Taylor 
has for his doctrine of self regeneration ; and in publishing it, they are 
as respectful to the Lord of heaven and earth. I consider the contri- 
vance and advocacy of such schemes to be absolute contempt cast upon 
the word of life, and a disgrace to the whole Protestant world. Jer. 8 ; 
9. " Lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is 
in them V 

O how safe and honorable it would be for those who indulge in un- 
scriptural speculations, to retract them according to gospel rules, with 
all the reasonings and conclusions contained in them. How this course 
would destroy enmity, disarm prejudice, and restore confidence and 
brotherly love ! And what is a higher consideration still, — it would 
leave that testimony for God which he ever claims, and which we must 
all give, willingly or unwillingly, at the day of judgment. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 101 



LETTER XIX. 

1 TIM. 5; 21. "I CHARGE THEE BEFORE GOD AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THE ELECT 

ANGELS, THAT THOU OBSERVE THESE THINGS, WITHOUT PREFERRING ONE BEFORE ANOTHER, 

DOING NOTHING BY PARTIALITY." 

The way to be useful in any sphere is to be impartial in our treat- 
ment of all our fellow creatures. If we do thus, they will know it, and 
it will be to our advantage and influence. On the other hand, if we are 
partial in our way, " preferring one before another," it will all eventu- 
ally be to our disadvantage. But as ministers of the gospel are public 
characters, who have dealings with all classes of people, on the most 
delicate subjects, and in the various circumstances of life, partiality in 
them detracts exceedingly from their usefulness, and exposes them to 
have their good " evil spoken of." Most ministers know something 
about this by sad experience ; and every person may understand, that 
partiality in ministers must be avoided as much as possible, from the 
fact, that they have so solemn a charge on the subject, from the inspir- 
ed apostle. 

But I believe it will be generally conceded, that the charge against 
partiality in ministers, is not limited to those to whom they preach ; but 
that their obligation to be impartial extends to one another, in all their 
various relations. As on the one hand, they are bound to sympathize 
with, and help one another in their troubles ; so on the other hand, they 
ought to be faithful to those of their brethren who may go out of the 
way. But is it not true, that they sometimes find the temptation to 
partiality very strong, when their erring brethren are of high standing, 
and of combined influence? That if for such reasons, public sentiment 
arrays itself against Christian fidelity, they are in danger of yielding to 
its dictates, and of setting their ingenuity to work to prove, that in such 
a case, duty and silence are the same thing ? 

I have been led to these reflections while considering how differently 
some faulty ministers have been treated from others, by their brethren. 
It is comparatively but a short time since the writings of the Rev. Hor- 
ace Bushnell, D. D., of Hartford, have led his ministerial brethren to 
believe that he is unsound in the faith. After they had, as they thought, 
a fair opportunity to examine his sentiments, the Association of which 
he is a member, took such steps, as ecclesiastical usage demanded, to 



102 



LETTERS TO THE 



call him to account for his errors : and this concern for the orthodoxy of 
ministers, it is believed, meets the approbation of the brotherhood through- 
out New England. This is as it should be. But how different has 
been the case in relation to the theological professors of Yale College. 
As long ago as 1828, their very objectionable scheme was broached ; 
but so far from being called to account by ihe proper tribunals, or even 
of being subjected to any investigation, strictly speaking, they are sup- 
posed to be on an equal footing with those who conscientiously adhered 
to the Old School, if not even superior to them. Hence has sprung into 
use the cant of " Taylorism and Tylerism," as though the peculiarities 
of Dr. Taylor are not greater than those of Dr. Tyler; while Dr. Tyler 
has endeavored simply to sustain the Old Orthodoxy of Connecticut. 
This may, by some, be considered a trivial circumstance ; but as small 
as it may seem, it has great power to mislead, and it is to be feared mul- 
titudes are deceived by it. It is a very convenient way to decide a 
cause, if we will not look into its merits. If there is no material dif- 
ference between " Taylorism and Tylerism," then it is not materially 
different, whether he " who is over all, God blessed forever" is above 
control ; or whether something controls him. Whether, though he is 
" blessed forever," " his blessedness is diminished by sin or not." 
Whether he is certainly sincere as a Lawgiver ; or whether this is 
doubtful. Whether objections to the doctrines of grace are to be met 
by positive arguments, or only by hypothesis. Whether God as a free 
agent is on a par with man ; or whether he is in this respect as much 
beneath man, as a child is beneath a giant. Whether there is such a 
thing as certainty in the moral universe ; or whether every thing is un- 
certain. Whether we should believe in Old Divinity, which claims to 
be founded on the whole current of the scriptures ; or in New Divinity, 
which makes no pretensions to be founded on scripture or fact, but 
merely upon a metaphysical notion. Whether we should treat " this 
glorious and fearful name, " The Lord thy God," with marked rever- 
ence or with marked irreverence. Whether we should have any respect 
for the plain and numerous declarations of God's word, if they come in 
contact with our preconceived notions ; or whether we may modify, 
and modify them till they become of too little consequence to be consid- 
ered a reason against such notions. Whether we are satisfied with the 
Saviour's doctrine of Regeneration ; or whether we may make a regen- 
eration to suit our philosophy, and so add to God's words. 

These specifications are only a specimen between the Old and New 
Divinity of New England. Other equally important points of differ- 
ence are omitted. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 103 

After a hundred thousand dollars had been secured to Yale College, 
a part of which was applied to carry out the intention of its venerable 
founders, in establishing and endowing " a school of the prophets ;" and 
after the Rev. Drs. Taylor, Goodrich, Fitch and Mr. Gibbs, had taken 
their professorships, what else was to be expected, than that as teachers 
of the Christian religion, they would make the Bible wholly their text 
book — that it should be the beginning, the middle, and the end of their 
professional studies and instructions. Their business was to bring all 
their own thoughts, and all the thoughts of their pupils, if possible, to 
the obedience of Christ ; and surely no one can rationally expect this 
could be done, only by means of the word of Christ. The case was 
as plain as it was with Adam and Eve, as to what fruit they might, or 
might not eat, in the garden of Eden. The invariable rule is, ( Jer. 23 ; 
28,) " The prophet that hath a dream let him tell a dream ; and he that 
hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to 
the wheat ? saith the Lord." It was not to be expected, that as soon as 
these Professors were comfortably fixed in their several departments, 
they would put their wits upon the stretch, to collect materials from 
hypotheses ; the nature of things ; the power of contrary choice ; that 
moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence ; no 
one can prove but that whatever may be, will be ; you cannot prove the 
contrary ; no created mind can tell, &c. &c. &c. : and by such means 
conjure up a Juggernaut of worldly wisdom, and send it rumbling, and 
squeaking, and whistling over the country, annoying and disgusting all 
the humble piety of Puritanism, and trampling upon the long acknowl- 
edged sufficiency of the word of God, and of its Almighty Author. I 
am not able to see, that the Professors had any more right to take the 
course ihey did take, than they would have to pretend to teach theology 
out of the Alcoran, or the Hindoo Shasters. And to crown the whole : 
after they had labored hard, for many years, in their printed writings, 
in their sermons, and in their exhortations to anxious inquirers, to show, 
that God had done all he could for their salvation, while they were re- 
maining in impenitence ; then these same Professors did, over their own 
signatures, in a printed document, jointly declare, " We have never af- 
firmed that God could not exclude sin from a moral universe." 

This course of the Professors has been known for a long time ; and 
yet no investigation of a strictly ecclesiastical nature has been made ! 
Consequently they have been emboldened to act as though theirs was 
the right position, and that it should be sustained, as though " they are 
the people and wisdom shall die with them;" without regard to the 
feelings of their Old School brethren, or to the peace of Zion, or to the 
general current of the word of God. Such sentiments and such a 



104 LETTERS TO THE 

course should be checked by the authority which Christ has put into the 
hands of his people as a law of his kingdom. The four theological Profes- 
sors at Yale College ought to render an account — for attempting to estab- 
lish the inability of Jehovah in relation to what he would do if he could, 
while they have declared, as a part of their religious creed, that he is "in- 
finite in power." [Here their speculations contradict their creed. The 
declaration that " God is infinite in power," has been well understood, 
by all who have signed the Orthodox creed, for two or three centuries. 
It means that God's power is entirely unlimited by creatures, and 
entirely unlimited as to what he may prefer to do. All, therefore, who 
admit this expression into their creed, must be considered as bound by 
it, till they signify that they have altered their creed, and changed the 
expression which contains the doctrine of God's power. In the " State- 
ment and Remarks" of the Professors, published in 1835, they say in 
reference to their former " Statement," " We cordially concurred in 
every sentiment expressed in the articles in the East Windsor Institute." 
One of those articles declares in the language of the Westminster Cat- 
echism, " God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his be- 
ing, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." When, 
therefore, the Professors intimate the least inability in God, however 
slightly or indirectly, they contradict their own creed, and one of the 
fundamental principles of all religion. Here is the grand Deception- 
Nest of New Divinity. Here is the lurking hole, so lamentably over- 
looked, where the old serpent lies coiled, and is singing lullaby with 
his tale ; and I believe his malice against God and his holy truth will 
be continually gratified, and Zion will mourn, till this Deception-Nest 
shall be effectually broken up. W r e may as well call a man healthy, 
who has a cancer at his vitals, as to call such deceptive theology sound 
and safe.] 

The four theological Professors ought to give account — for so manag- 
ing a supposition, as to render it doubtful whether God is sincere as a 
lawgiver, while they have declared, as a part of their religious creed, 
that he is infinite — in holiness and truth. [Why, then, did not 
the Professors rest the sincerity of God here, as a question forever set- 
tled, even by a double declaration ? They say that God is infinite in 
holiness and truth. Then he is certainly sincere. Solemnly to de- 
clare, in an article of faith, before God and man, that God is infinite in 
holiness and truth, and afterward act as though the question of his 
sincerity were unsettled, is amazing. Yet strange as it is, after the 
Professors had subscribed to this double testimony of Jehovah's sincer- 
ity, they felt themselves authorized to resort to a mere supposition on 
this fundamental doctrine, in order to meet the objection, that sin is the 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 105 

necessary means of the greatest good ! And Dr. Goodrich informs us, 
as we have seen in the eighth Letter, " that the whole tenor of the 
word of God is against the theory of Hopkins ;" Hopkins' theory con- 
taining the doctrine that sin in the necessary means of the greatest 
good. Why, then, did not the Professors bring the word of God to bear 
against this doctrine and annihilate it at once ? Instead of it, they at- 
tempt to meet it by their supposition ; and in so doing, they throw into 
doubt the very attribute of God, which they undertake to defend, and 
which their creed taught them is true without a supposition — is posi/ice- 
ly true ; and concerning which they were bound to express no doubt, 
so long as they should let their creed stand as the declaration of their 
faith. " For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 
Now it is impossible for the Professors to prove positively, that God is 
sincere as a Lawgiver, unless they give up their famous supposition, 
which they inform us they instituted for the express purpose of vindi- 
cating the divine sincerity. The snare in which they have caught them- 
selves it is hoped will be a warning to all coming generations, not to 
resort to their own wisdom in stead of the word of God, for any purpose 
whatever. If they do, they will in some way or other, and some time 
or other see their folly. 

The Professors ought to be called to an account, For denying that 
power applies to mind, contrary to a numerous class of texts. Whose 
word shall stand, God's or man's ? See Jer. 44 ; 28. 

The Professors ought to give account, For making and advocating 
another regeneration from that which Christ very definitely taught ; and 
consequently for adding to God's word. 

The Professors ought to give accouni For declaring conjointly in a 
published "statement," that they never had affirmed that God could not 
exclude sin from a moral universe, though they had long labored to 
show, that God had done all he could for the salvation of sinners, while 
they remained in impenitence. 

Now, if such reckless, unscriptural speculations on some of the 
fundamental doctrines of all religion, and such an appearance of a most 
gross and public falsehood do not require an investigation, according to 
the authority which Christ has invested in his church, then I know not 
for what purpose church discipline was instituted. 

I have it in writing, that one of the theological Professors maintains, 
that " a man may sincerely believe what he knows to be false." I 
must dissent from this as a general rule, notwithstanding it proceeds 
from so high authority ; for we are authorized by the scriptures to confine 
this infernal faculty to those only, to whom God shall send strong delu- 
sion that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who be- 

14 



106 



LETTERS TO THE 



lieved not in the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ' ' According to 
.this doctrine, the most unreasonable jealousy, angry and malicious feel- 
ings that ever rankled in the human heart, may be turned into a sincere 
belief; and certainly every one has a right to declare and vindicate 
what he sincerely believes. How long could society exist ; or rather, 
how soon would this world become like the infernal regions, if such a 
principle were put into practice ! I take this to be metaphysical ethics, 
in distinction from the dictates of sober reason and common sense. 
And we ought to pray that such a principle may be forever confined to 
the walls of a mad house ! 



LETTER XX. 

1 COR. 1 ; 20, 21. — " Where is the wise 1 where is the scribe 1 where is the dis- 

PUTER OF THIS WORLD ? HATH NOT GOD MADE FOOLISH THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD 1 
FOR AFTER THAT IN THE WISDOM OF GOD, THE WORLD BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD, IT 
PLEASED GOD BY THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE." 

We are here taught, that the wisdom of this world, which of course 
comprehended the skill of the learned and acute Greeks, to a part 
of which nation these words were addressed, has no wisdom in it, 
in comparison with the revelation which God has made in his holy 
word. I proposed this subject on the twenty-seventh page of my 
printed letter to the theological Professors at Yale College, in order 
to show the entire insufficiency and uselessness of all metaphysical 
theories, to help us to understand the word of God. I there suggested, 
that when Paul said to the Corinthians, " When I came unto you, I 
came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you 
the testimony of God," he meant, that " he did not come as a metaphy- 
sician." I was attempting to confute the Professors in their philosophi- 
cal speculations, by showing that in what the apostle said of the 
Greeks, it was evident that he spoke disparagingly of such methods of 
searching after religious truth. Professor Goodrich made no reply to 
these suggestions, which I supported by the scriptures. Whoever reads 
his speculations and those of his colleagues, knows that they make 
great use of "the nature of things." It seems to be their polar star, 
through all their voyage of metaphysical discovery. Accordingly 
I have strenuously opposed the aid of this ''nature of things," as 
totally unscriptural — nothing but the work of imagination. I had not 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 107 

seen or heard of Napoleon's opinion on the subject, till eighteen months 
after my letter to the theological Professors was published. I readily 
acknowledge that my sensations were peculiar, when No. 477 of the 
American Tract Society was put into my hands, entitled " Napoleon's 
Argument for the Divinity of Christ and the Scriptures." Near the 
commencement of this tract are the following words : " Christianity 
has one advantage over all systems of philosophy and all religions ; 
Christians do not delude themselves in regard to the nature of things. 
You cannot reproach them with the subtleties and artifices of those 
idealists, who think to solve profound theological problems by their 
empty dissertations. Fools ! their efforts are those of the infant who 
tries to touch the sky with his hand, or cries to have the moon for his 
plaything." 

Though, as I have already suggested, I knew nothing of Napoleon's 
argument, it contains just such views as I endeavored to exhibit to the 
Professors in my letter to them, though as to manner, above my abil- 
ity. Who would have thought that that singular man, who, as we have 
been wont to conclude, was a total unbeliever, and confined his views 
and talents to war, blood and conquest, and to an arbitrary government 
over what he acquired, could teach some of the leisurely descendants 
of the Puritans the true and only theology of the Bible, the Christian 
religion; and (doubtless without design) administer to them a just, a 
seasonable, and severe reproof. It is one of the wonders of the nine- 
teenth century — of any age. It is enough to put many a self-confident 
theologian to the blush. With what directness and accuracy did that 
extraordinary man, Napoleon Bonaparte, study the Bible on entirely 
Protestant principles, and subject the vain inventions of men to that 
infallible standard of truth, though he was the head of a Catholic 
nation ! How came he to be so familiar with just such speculations as 
are common among us ; where the " nature of things" — what is totally 
unknown to the Bible is deemed so essential, and where such efforts are 
made " to solve profound theological problems by empty dissertations ?" 
Why, if the suggestion did not involve an impossibility, I should be 
inclined to believe that he was thoroughly acquainted with New Divin- 
ity — that he had even lived in Connecticut. 

It is with great satisfaction, that I find the American Tract Society 
have adopted his views and are willing to speak out. Through him 
they can exclaim concerning those who attempt " to solve profound 
theological problems by empty dissertations : Fools ! their efforts are 
those of the infant who tries to touch the sky with his hand, or cries to 
have the moon for his plaything." Dear brethren, the publishing com- 
mittee of the American Tract Society, composed of different denomina- 



108 LETTERS TO THE 

tions ! Go on with your blessed work of teaching the Bible, and noth- 
ing but the Bible ; and spread your millions of the leaves from the tree 
of life over the world to heal the nations. These leaves, if rightly 
applied, will take down the swellings and puffings of pride and vain 
deceit. Go on, with the promises of God for your encouragement. 
He says : " Them that honor me, I will honor." " Be ye strong, 
therefore, and let not your hands be weak, for your work shall be 
rewarded." 

It seems, however, that with all the accuracy of Napoleon, on one 
point his information failed him. He says : " Christians do not delude 
themselves with the nature of things. You cannot reproach them with 
the subtleties and artifices of those idealists," &c. No doubt this was 
strictly true as far as his observations extended ; and that he took it for 
granted, that no believers in the Bible could see the least occasion or 
propriety to leave the plain teachings of that infallible book, for the 
flimsy efforts of man's wisdom. No doubt, he was accustomed to hear 
much about " the nature of things" among freethinkers, and no where 
else ; and therefore he took it for granted, that no Christians would ever 
think of resorting to unrevealed speculative notions, for the purpose of 
adding anything to the sufficient, perfect revelation, which God has 
made, and made without man's help. 

But the result of our observations in this country is different from 
that which it is believed followed the observations of Napoleon. Here 
it is asserted, that " there is a standard of right and wrong in the nature 
of things, to which God is conformed, and to which all his works and 
ways are conformed :" " Some standard of right, to which all his ways 
are conformed, and which is not in mere will." And it is thought, 
that God appeals to this standard of right, this nature of things, when 
he reasons with the children of men. It seems, according to some 
speculatists, that God is not satisfied, and thinks we need not be satis- 
fied, with his declaration, that "He is the Rock, his work is perfect ; for 
all his ways are juo^gment : a God of truth without iniquity, just and 
right, is he." And being dissatisfied himself, and allowing us to be 
dissatisfied with him, as the infallible standard of right, to whom it is 
safe to appeal, we are taught to call up " a nature of things," not from 
the Bible, for it is not there, but from the chaotic regions of speculation, 
and put it forward as the highest court of appeal, to which God appears 
on the one side, and man on the other, to decide between them what is 
right, and what is wrong. This doctrine of the nature of things teaches, 
also, that the standard of right is not " in mere will," that is, the will 
of God. Indeed ! What, then, is meant, where it is said of God, that 
he " worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." It is his 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 109 

own will, not the will of the nature of things — not the will of laws 
out of himself which he cannot control. The counsel, too, by which 
God works all things, is the counsel of his own will. Not the counsel — 
not the obstinacy of the nature of things, to which his will must be 
conformed. God has no foreign master whose dictates he is obliged to 
obey. Who does not know, that the term, own, is always emphatical in 
such a connection ? If these words do not teach, that God worketh all 
things after the counsel of his own will, exclusive of any other being or 
thing, or supposed or imagined being or thing, in the universe, then we 
can have no confidence in words to express ideas ; and to save us from 
imposition, it is no matter how soon we abandon them, and become per- 
petual mutes. Again, God says : " I will have mercy on whom I will 
have mercy." If I understand these words, they do not say, I will 
have mercy on whom the nature of things will allow me to have mercy. 
When Christ, in his extreme agony in the garden, prayed, " Abba, 
Father, all things are possible with thee : take away this cup from me : 
nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt" — " not my will but 
thine be done ;" I believe, beyond all doubt, that he did resolve every 
thing ultimately into the will of his Father : and it can be nothing 
short of charging him with deceptive words in that most awful hour, to 
suppose that he knew there was a nature of things, fate-like, not under 
the perfect control of his Father's will. And what do we read, Luke, 
10 ; 21 ? " In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, 
O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things 
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes : even so, 
Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Oh, it would have turned 
the sweetness of submission into gall, in old Puritan Christians, if they 
had been obliged to believe, that instead of submitting to the unre- 
stricted will of God as their ultimate resort, they must submit to him as 
to one who is also under authority : who is eternally restricted to a 
nature of things, a blind fate that dictates without intelligence ! 

"Human rebellion and wickedness oppose themselves to a work of 
grace in our world, and hindrances to salvation which the God of grace 
cannot wholly overcome" Here is fate enough. Such is the teaching 
of one, who has been following out the nature of things. This doctrine 
is obviously opposed to that numerous class of texts which assert the 
supremacy of God. Take a few, among the various examples which 
might be produced. God repeatedly says of himself that ho is the 
first and the last. But it could not be so, if he must be conformed to 
the nature of things in all bis ways. That would be the first and the last 
to limit him eternally. Of Christ it is said : " And he is before all 
things, and by him all things consist." No : this cannot be, if he as 



110 LETTERS TO THE 

God must be conformed in all his ways to the nature of things. Of 
Christ as God it is said again : " Who is over all, God blessed forever." 
But no: if he must in all his ways be conformed to the nature of 
things, then the nature of things is of course over him. Not over him 
as an intelligent agent, but over him as blind fate ; and this is precisely 
the doctrine of many who have not believed in Christianity, or who at 
least have not been much influenced by it. If you speak to them 
about a preparation for death, the response is, that we must all submit 
to fate. This badge of heathenism is substantially the same as the 
nature of things. They both attempt to point us beyond God, and to 
the same emptiness, wind and confusion. 

The pretense of an appeal to the nature of things is as unnecessary 
as it is unscriptural ; for an oath is an appeal, and the highest kind of 
appeal, both for man and for God. In an oath, man appeals to God, 
and God appeals to himself. It is generally understood, that man 
appeals to God. Hence the form of an oath makes God the last resort 
for us, and so it does in relation to himself. His infinite wisdom has 
seen several occasions, when it was proper for him to take an oath. 
Isa. 45 ; 23 : "I have sworn by myself." Jer. 49 ; 13 : " For I have 
sworn by myself, saith the Lord." Jer. 51 ; 14 : " The Lord of hosts 
hath sworn by himself." Amos, 4 ; 2: "The Lord God hath sworn 
by his holiness." Ps. 89; 35 : " Once have I sworn by my holiness." 
When Abraham performed that extraordinary act of obedience, (Gen. 
22; 16.) in proceeding to offer up Isaac, till he was stopped ; " By my- 
self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, 
and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son." Now the inspired 
writers very often refer to this oath, which Jehovah made to confirm 
the Abrahamic covenant. Shall we, then, seek after something for God 
to appeal to, in reasoning with us, better than himself? Before we do 
thus, let us hear his own opinion on the subject. As a reason why he 
should appeal to himself in this manner, it is said, Heb. 6 ; 13, 14 : 
" For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by 
no greater, he sware by himself, saying, surely blessing I will bless thee ; 
and multiplying I will multiply thee." In verse 16, it is said : "For 
men verily swear by the greater." Why then do not men and God 
swear by " the nature of things," if this is the most proper appeal ; if 
it is the greater ? Why swear by the less, when the end of all strife is 
to swear by the greater 1 Appeal to the nature of things instead of 
appealing to God ! The question, how metaphysicians have found 
something in a purely ideal " Nature of things," which is so solid, 
which is immutable in so high a sense as that the eternal, immutable 
God must be conformed to it, deserves a little attention. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. Ill 

It seems, that because God has for wise and benevolent purposes, so 
fitted to our minds mathematical truths, axioms, first principles, self-evi- 
dent propositions, &c, and so fitted our minds to them, that, in our com- 
mon state, we cannot conceive how they should bear any other relations 
to us than they do bear, some have thought that they are arbitrarily and 
eternally independent of God. That they are in such a sense, beside 
him, before him, above him, and beyond him, as that he is absolutely 
obliged to conform to them, and that they do sometimes so cross his 
wishes, as that he cannot do what he would be very glad to do if he could. 
But it appears to me that multitudes of facts, in the course of divine 
Providence, entirely overset all such schemes. (I had not turned my 
attention to the application of such facts, when I wrote my fifth Letter, in 
which is this sentence : " Of all this we know nothing.") When the 
Lord permits the mind to fall into a certain state, as in dreams, and insan- 
ity, it is not uncommon that the subject clearly perceives things to be 
consistent, which in a common state of mind appear absurd and self-con- 
tradictory. Physicians and other attendants on deranged people, can 
relate many instances of this kind. Things are viewed in a light en- 
tirely opposite to that in which they are viewed when awake, and in 
health. It will be proper to notice a few cases, as specimens; not that 
they are more remarkable than multitudes of others. 

An able and pious preacher was taken deranged in such a way, that 
he fully believed he had left this world, and was an inhabitant of the fu- 
ture world. Though all his thoughts, and reasonings, on this subject, 
were nothing but absurdity, yet every thing appeared consistent to him, 
and it was beyond the power of any one who conversed with him, to 
catch him in any inconsistency with himself. On other topics he was 
rational. 

A worthy lady in a state of derangement, while in company with sev- 
eral, stated many interesting things which took place — things which 
deeply involved characters ; while nothing of the kind was transacted. 
After she was restored to soundness of mind, she had the clearest recol- 
lection of what she thought she had witnessed ; and as the scene invol- 
ved much, it was a delicate subject in the family. Great efforts were 
made to convince her that it was utterly impossible for those things to 
take place which she imagined were a reality. At length her good sense 
led her to say, that though she never witnessed any thing in her life 
more clearly than this seemed — that she had a vivid recollection contin- 
ually of being an eye and ear witness of the whole transaction, yet as 
she was but one witness, and there were several against her, she must 
depend upon the most evidence, and therefore believe what others saw 
and heard, rather than what she had seen and heard herself. 



112 LETTERS TO THE 

I am perfectly acquainted with the following case. A person dreamed 
that he was in a circle of friends in New York, when Dr. Watts was 
present. He was highly gratified to see him, and informed him that he 
wanted to converse with him concerning his sacred poetry. At that 
moment, the fact occurred to him, that Dr. Watts had been dead nearly 
a hundred years. Instantly his mind was thrown into such a state, as to 
perceive clearly, that this fact made no difference. The death of Dr. 
Watts many years ago in England could be a reality, and also it was a 
reality, that he was still alive and in New York; and the person en- 
joyed in his society, all he had anticipated, before it occurred to him that 
Dr. Watts was dead. 

I conclude the reader will instantly perceive that the object in stating 
these cases is not to express any confidence in dreams, or in the truth of 
what the insane think they know, only as they exhibit the phenomena of 
the mind ; and it appears to me they do this in such a manner, as to 
teach us that we know nothing about the nature of things, separate from 
what Jehovah has been pleased to constitute it. u Of him, and through 
him, and to him, are all things." He who made the mind has directed, 
that in its proper state to transact the business of life, it shall not be able 
to conceive any thing possible but that which corresponds with mathe- 
matical demonstration : that the whole is greater than a part ; that one 
and the same thing cannot be in more than one place, at the same time ; 
that a thing cannot be and not be, at the same time, and the like. But 
only let the mind become disordered ; in other words, let Jehovah be 
pleased, in his infinite wisdom to alter the mind, and this train of con- 
ception is broken up and changed. Then the subjects perceive, most 
clearly believe in, depend upon, and act according to, what in health ap- 
pears most absurd, contradictory, and impossible. And they not only 
clearly perceive things in this light, but in numerous instances, the very 
thing which makes them obstinate and dangerous, is, that others are so 
unreasonable as not to believe as they believe, — will not see and feel what 
to them is self-evident, intuitively true, or false, as the case may be. 
" The nature of things " as it now appears to them, is exactly the oppo- 
site of what it seems to those whose minds are sound : that is, to those 
whose minds God has been pleased to adapt to the arrangements he has 
made for knowledge and usefulness in this life. 

All the essential difference between a wild dream, and settled derange- 
ment, seems to be, that in derangement, the change of mind continues ; 
(and God might continue the change forever, if he pleased;) while a 
dream is limited to the hours of sleep. Where is the person, either male 
or female, that has arrived to adult years, who has not experienced more 
or less this perverted mind in his sleep ? Who has not seen intuitively, 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 113 

as he thought, the reality of what seems to us when awake, to be perfect 
absurdities, and contradictions, and impossibilities ? Flow often our 
bodies have gone with our thoughts, in an instant, to some distant coun- 
try, over the seas, or around the world ! Our bodies, as well as our 
minds were certainly there, as we believed ; for we ate, and drank, and 
conversed, and formed plans, and carried on correspondences, &c; in 
the sleep of one night, and perhaps in an hour's time. Yea, in our 
nightly slumbers, we have all walked, and run, and passed through dis- 
tant places, and labored, and performed great feats of bodily strength, 
without moving hand or foot. We have been able to walk without 
touching any thing with our feet ; we have sailed without water, and 
flown without wings. In our dreams, we have lived without heads ; but 
it has not prevented us from eating, and drinking, and conversing, though 
without mouths ; and we have of course seen without eyes, heard with- 
out ears, smelled without noses, and thought without brains. And we 
have seen others in the same singular plight. Yes ; it was certainly 
so. We would have staked life for the truth of the scenes. To suppose 
otherwise would be contrary to the " nature of things" — " a contradiction 
in terms." Here is all there is to that which is thought to be before the 
First, and after the Last, and above the Highest; and which makes so 
many stare at the profoundness of its discoverers. 

" Defend me, therefore, common sense, say I, 
From reveries so airy, from the toil 
Of dropping buckets into empty wells, 
And growing old in drawing nothing up." 

As I have appealed to the experience of mankind, I would add that we 
have reason to believe the cases above specified are only as a few units 
to millions of a similar character which have occurred, and are occur- 
ring in the world. All such cases show how little we know of the mind, 
and of its infinite Author ; and it seems to me we might be far better em- 
ployed than to pretend to know so much concerning them. How much 
more befitting us to spend our time in turning the letters of the word 
Ignorance into as many figures, and multiplying them together. By 
such an exercise we might possibly be led to think more of a question at 
the head of this letter, — " Hath not God made foolish tho wisdom of 
this world?" 

As it has been one of the principal objects of these Letters to the 
Christian Public, to test, by the word of God, all modern schemes, which 
aim directly or indirectly, openly or secretly, to deny, or render doubt- 
ful, or obscure, in any manner or degree, the doctrine of the absolutely 
supreme and eternal independence of God, I feel it my dutv to notice 
15 



114 LETTERS TO THE 

the views of the Rev. Edwards A. Park, Theological Professor at 
Andover. 

I have made use of the best means I could command, to ascertain his 
sentiments on this fundamental principle of all religion ; and if there is 
no mistake, (and I am desirous to make none,) he holds substantially, 
that God is subject to laws out of himself, and that he is embarrassed by 
free agency. The following is said to be verbatim as it has come from 
Professor Park's instructions: — " Gcd saves all he can — would be glad 
to save more if he could." Admitting that this statement is correct, it 
is obvious, that the same objections lie against it which are against the 
doctrine of the Theological Professors at New Haven. God is restricted, 
whether we denominate that which restricts him, the nature of things, 
laws out of himself, free agency, or any thing else ; and we may as well 
call it fate as any thing, for it amounts to it. It is that which limits Jeho- 
vah, aside from, or beyond his will. If it is the belief of Professor Park, 
that God would he glad- to save more than he can, then he presumes to 
decide, that God's goodness is superior to his power ; while the West- 
minster Catechism declares them both infinite, and of course both equal, 
as far as finite creatures can know any thing about them. I trust it has 
been abundantly shown in the course of these Letters, that according to 
the analogy of the scriptures, they are entirely silent, as to any limita- 
tion in God aside from his holy will. Consequently any scheme, which 
does not leave the subject here, is unscriptural ; is entirely man's de- 
vice ; and is infinitely derogatory to God. 

I consider it my duty to refer again to a passage of scripture, which I 
brieflv noticed in Letter II. " For the invisible things of him from the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are 
without excuse." There was a flourishing church at Rome, which Paul 
had not seen when he wrote the epistle containing the foregoing words. 
It would seem natural to conclude, that as he had never preached to that 
church, he would, in his epistle, be somewhat systematical. So he was ; 
and he has given a proper specimen of a theological system. As God is 
the sum of all existence, and the only foundation of religion, this system 
of theology begins with him, as all systems should. When we take a 
o-eneral view of the stupendous works of God, power is the first thought 
which presents itself to our minds ; and it is the first view which God 
gives of himself — " his eternal power." It should be added, that he is 
perfectly consistent on this as well as on every other subject, through all 
his revelation to man. What, then, can be more out of place, than for 
us to begin beyond God in our theological schemes, and pretend to find 
something which cripples him ? Fearing that the foundation of God 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 115 

himself is not deep enough, we must pretend to dive below him, and lay 
our corner-stone upon some nature of things ; or upon some laws, out of 
God, not under his perfect control — upon something, which operates on 
God like the old heathenish notion of the decrees of fate ; — something to 
which God must conform. Having laid our corner-stone deeper and 
more sure than though it were upon God, we erect a chief pillar upon 
it, which rises above him, and we must have it to support our theological 
temple ! But it is a rotten pillar. It is like an attempt to mix iron and 
miry clay. It is an attempt to form an alliance between eternal reali- 
ties and nonentity ; between the wisdom of God and the folly of man. 
" God saves all he can — would be glad to save more if he could." To 
pretend that this doctrine is any part of Calvinism, or that it is consistent 
with it, is a misnomer. The peculiarly distinctive feature of Calvinism, 
as appears in the writings of that great man, whose name it bears, and in 
the creeds and catechisms modeled according to them, is, that sovereign 
independence of God, which gives him the perfect ability and right to do 
all his pleasure — to do whatever his soul desireth. It makes him re- 
moved the farthest imaginable from the doctrine, that he wculd be glad 
to save more than he can, or from any other doctrine, which teaches, 
that he is not eternally and perfectly satisfied with his own wisdom and 
ability. It is mysterious to me, how men can dare, or wish, to be con- 
sidered Calvinists, who, in the face of the world, introduce doctrines 
totally opposed to what is the most essential, and the most obviously es- 
sential to Calvinism. Dr. Hopkins, in carrying out the sentiments of 
Calvin, is very explicit in his writings generally, and particularly so, in 
the last sermon of a posthumous volume, in which he takes leave of the 
world. He states, that God will overrule for the highest possible good 
and happiness, all the sin and misery, which ever did, and ever will take 
place throughout the universe. With full confidence in such wisdom, 
holiness and ability in God, he professed to rejoice in view of eternal 
scenes, but just before him. Here his mind rested ; and here was the 
grand theme, which was evidently much on his heart through the whole 
course of his ministry. Who can discern the most distant relationship 
between such Calvinism, and the doctrine that " God saves all he can, 
and would be glad to save more if he could ?" The terms, by which 
different denominations of Christians arc known, were designed solely for 
the purpose of marking what was peculiar in each of them. Now if a 
man disbelieves what is very peculiar to any particular denomination, 
and at the same time claims to bear the name of such denomination, lie 
deceives the public, profess what he may, and explain as he may. 

It is far from the wish of the writer unnecessarily to wound the feel- 
ings of any one ; and it would give him great pleasure to know that the 



H6 LETTERS TO THE 

remarks just made have no proper application to the gentleman brought 
to view. But it accords with commendable human action, on a subject 
of so vast importance, to speak decidedly according to the best informa- 
tion we can obtain ; being always willing to be corrected, if superior 
information will detect the error. Yet so long as the writer has evi- 
dence that his information is substantially correct, he does not intend 
that any considerations of learning, or talents, popularity or influence, 
shall deter him from stating things, just as he has reason to think they 
are ; and he believes that for the want of such frankness, the religious 
public have long and grievously suffered. Professors of Theology are 
in a very peculiar sense the property of the church. Accordingly it is 
essential that all their sentiments should be of easy access to the public. 
It must be so. Before theological institutions were set up, every young 
gentleman had his choice as to the minister with whom he should study ; 
and this choice was founded on the knowledge he had of the minister's 
sentiments. Whoever thought that theological schools would break in 
upon this privilege, and that it would become customary for those who 
would prepare for the gospel ministry, to go where there would be the 
least difficulty to ascertain the sentiments of the teachers on the funda- 
mental points of all religion ? The effects of what ministers teach will 
be felt all over the world, down to the final judgment. Hence, if there 
ever was, or can be, a case, which requires the most scrupulous caution, 
it is that pertaining to Theological Professors, who will generally instill 
what they believe, into the minds of their students. 

I wish it here to be distinctly understood, that I am not looking for 
infallibility in teachers of Theology, any more than in other men * and 
unless I have grossly deceived myself, I have been liberal toward min- 
isters and others, who have given me evidence that they wish to build 
their religious belief entirely upon the Bible. Doubtless all, (including 
the writer certainly,) make many and great mistakes in pursuing this 
course. Doubtless we all have our errors, which will cleave to us till 
we come "within the vail." Hence, so long as we give one another 
evidence, that our whole aim is to ground our faith entirely on the Bible, 
we ought to "put on charity the bond of perfectness," to be very kind, 
and overlook the errors of one another. Perhaps no reader of these 
lines commits as many blunders as myself, in attempting to find out what 
God says in his holy word. I hope there are none. I intend to main- 
tain liberal feelings towards all who give evidence that they are real 
Bible students : that is, those who study the sacred scriptures merely as 
learners, that they may find out what God says to them. Those who 
intend to carry out the plan of the noble Bereans, who "searched the 
scriptures daily whether those things were so." I insist that in all 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 117 

cases, as it was with the Bereans, the Bible must be the text book — the 
standard, the whole standard — it must conform to no speculative philos- 
ophy, but all speculative philosophy must conform to it. It must be the 
beginning, the middle, the end, the foundation and the headstone of all 
religious knowledge. There never was, and there never will be, any 
speculative knowledge, or experience, on religion, worth having, which 
is not grounded entirely on the Bible. Who does not instantly perceive 
an essential difference between this course of study or teaching, and 
that of calling in the aid of some " nature of things," or of laws not 
entirely under God's control, in order to modify the scriptures to our own 
liking ? And on what subject in a theological system are such human 
efforts so fearful as that which strikes at the power of God, the very first 
trace, as we have seen, of his existence ! To undertake to pass over, 
explain away, or modify that numerous class of texts, which, in their 
most obvious sense, are calculated to leave the deepest impression of 
what the great and glorious ' I am that I am' is, is virtually raising the 
question between a God and no God. Certainly, if the scheme of mod- 
ifying the word of God, by suppositions or any thing else, is allowed in 
relation to the attributes of Jehovah, who is the foundation of all reli- 
gion, it may on the same principle, be extended to every subject even to 
the divine existence ! There is no stopping place. I trust, therefore, 
it is made sufficiently plain why some cannot be satisfied to be kept in 
ignorance or doubt, concerning what any theological Professor believes 
and teaches. They must know the whole. They want no religious nos- 
trums. The least concealment on the part of any one, is inconsistent 
with gospel simplicity and with the spirit of free-inquiry. It is stepping 
on to popery ground. It is, therefore, a plain duty of those who think 
there is sufficient reason for suspicion, to state their troubles without 
disguise ; and if there be no efforts to relieve their minds, this inatten- 
tion will be a lawful and full confirmation of the suspicion. There must 
be no uncertainty, no mere conjecture here. We want to know whether 
our beloved youth, the hope of the world, who have been consecrated to 
the service of God, with so many prayers and tears of their own, and 
of their parents, are sent abroad to learn to teach the old gospel in its 
purity and power, or whether the seeds of man's devices may not possi- 
bly be scattered, here and there, which, if sown, will come up sooner 
or later, and surely produce a harvest of tares. 

I deeply regret the manner in which the pretended " Philosophy of 
religion" is treated in these days of boasted light, as though nothing 
censurable were to be attached to it. Must we pass over as mere pec- 
cadillos the monstrous liberties taken with the name and word of Al- 
mighty God, by the wisdom of man, because it assumes the enchanting 



118 LETTERS TO THE 

name of ll Philosophy of Religion ;" Is the " Philosophy of Religion" 
consecrated to be the sanctuary of error ? We hear, " whatever be the 
Philosophy of religion among ministers," as though this were a matter 
of as much indifference, as what coats they wear. " The Philosophy of 
Religion, alias Philosophy and vain deceit," alias that " Wisdom of 
this world which is foolishness with God," never was, and never will be 
satisfied with " the simplicity that is in Christ." Had it not been for its 
exorbitant demands, Martin Luther would not have been obliged to go 
to Worms under circumstances of so great self-denial, and there, before 
the gaze, and pomp, and hatred of the power, and despotism of the 
world, and at the risk of his life, declare his belief in the scriptures, as 
the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice. This glorious princi- 
ple has been vindicated at too dear a rate to allow the least infringment 
of it to be smoothed over: and I trust that every attempt at it will meet 
a prompt rebuke, so long as any Protestant blood shall flow in our veins. 
My soul loathes all the high pretensions to love and zeal for the word 
of God, by any, who make its sacred truths, in any degree, directly or 
indirectly, by declaration or implication, subservient to the vain reason- 
ings of men — Who, while they extol it to the skies, would kick it about 
like a foot-ball, rather than lose an iota of human invention, or one corus- 
cation of fancy. If we are indeed Protestants, let us carry out the fun- 
damental principle of Protestantism. If we are not, let us say so and 
keep nothing back. And if we are partly Protestants, and partly not, 
and like those children, who " spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and 
could not speak in the Jews language," let us still own our pedigree, 
and not attempt to deceive people. 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 119 



LETTER XXI 



PSALM 119; 160. — "Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy right- 
eous JUDGMENTS ENDURETH FOREVER." Ps. 12; 6. "TlIE WORDS OF THE LORD ARE PURE 

WORDS, AS SILVER TRIED IN A FURNACE OF EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES." Jk.R. 18; 14. 

44 Will a man leave the snow of Lebanon, which cometh from the rock of the 
field 1 or shall the cold flowing waters that come from another place be 
forsaken?" Jer. 15; 16. — "Thy words were found and i did eat thkm ; and thy word 
WAS unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." 



I know not how we can place sufficient confidence in the Bible for 
our guide to heaven, unless we receive what it contains as a system of 
facts. To do this, it is necessary to be entirely satisfied with the evi- 
dences which are brought to prove its divine origin — that it is indeed 
the word of God. This essential point being settled in our minds, what 
next we have to do is to ascertain what the word of God contains, and 
admit it as composing a system of truth, of facts. We must come to 
this conclusion, in relation to all the doctrines it contains; to its pre- 
cepts and institutions, to its histories and prophesies, and to its promises 
and threatenings. Nothing short of this can make a man a real believ- 
er in divine revelation. But if such be our faith, we are prepared to 
build our theological system wholly on the Bible. In this case, we have 
what we consider the proof of facts for all we believe ; and facts are 
the ground of all evidence. But it is a question sometimes agitated, 
whether we must not have some philosophy to interpret the scriptures ? 
I answer, yes, if by philosophy is intended simply the philosophy there 
is in language. I know of no other, unless by it is intended also, that 
exercise of the mental faculties which is necessary to investigate any 
subject, and collect evidence respecting it. But, if by philosophy is 
intended some particular scheme adopted to study the subjects in the 
Bible, different from what is necessary to study any other book, I an- 
swer, No. What other philosophy than that which belongs to language, 
does the child need to understand his parents, or the parent to under- 
stand his children ? What other philosophy do any of us need to un- 
derstand each other in the social and business concerns of life ] What 
other philosophy than that which language affords, do our children 
need to understand their school books, their Sabbath school lessons, or 
any other book which they read? What philosophy, but that which 
belongs to language, do we need, to understand sermons or lectures on 



120 LETTERS TO THE 

any subject ? Does a jury need some particular philosophical scheme, 
beyond the philosophy in language, in order to understand the facts which 
the witnesses give in their testimony ? Or do they need any other phi- 
losophy to enable them to understand the charge, which the judge gives 
them. Does the lawyer, who has truth on his side, need any particular 
philosophical scheme, to assist him to make the facts intelligible to the 
court, the jury, and the spectators? No. What then is intended by 
having some philosophy, beside that which belongs to language, in order 
to study the scriptures successfully ? 

It may here be suggested, that what are termed the rules of exegesis 
are necessary to ascertain the meaning of the scriptures. This is true; 
but the rules of exegesis are simply the result of experience, and belong 
to no one philosophical scheme more than to another. They point out 
to us the most direct and sure method of coming at facts. They apply 
to any other book as well as to the Bible. The only difference is, that 
as the subjects in the Bible are more numerous and complicated than in 
most other books, more exegetical rules are necessary. This remark 
may be illustrated by the different Wills and Testaments which are left 
by the deceased. One of them has so few subjects and circumstances, 
that its meaning is clearly perceived as we read it. Another is very 
complicated ; and of course requires more rules of interpretation : but 
if all the rules are correctly applied, the real mind of the testator is cer- 
tainly known. In all this I can discern no necessity for any special, 
philosophical scheme. Just so it is in relation to the interpretation of 
the sacred scriptures. Those rules of exegesis which may be found ne- 
cessary, are always at command ; and they are such as are dictated by 
experience and common sense. They show us how we may discover 
the Will of the great Testator — how to come at the facts in the Bible. I 
will not omit to remark in this place, that when I speak of the means of 
obtaining the sense of the scriptures, I always include prayer. 

The question, then, returns ; what necessity is there for any philoso- 
phy beside that which belongs to language, in order to come at the facts 
in the Bible ? I answer, None. Lest I should be misunderstood, I 
would say, that in reasoning upon the scriptures by way of applying 
them to a particular case, after the meaning is ascertained, philosophy, 
that is, some special mode of reasoning comes in ; but this is entirely 
distinct from ascertaining the truth, that is, the facts, of the scriptures. 
If I do not myself mistake, we are now come to one of the greatest and 
most disastrous mistakes committed in relation to the Bible ; which is, 
that instead of trying to find out the truths of that sacred book by com- 
paring its parts together, as we know we must do in relation to all other 
books, we adopt some scheme to make it comport with our preconceived 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



121 



notions. This reverses the whole plan of studying the Bible ; and in- 
stead of making it our teacher, we apply it simply to prove what we 
imagine our own wisdom first discovered. Now it is not wonderful, that 
if this is our practice, we should need some philosophy, some special phi- 
losophical scheme, to assist us in studying the Bible. In this case we 
are like the lawyer, on the side opposite to that which contains the facts. 
He must have some special scheme, some hypothesis, some unsound po- 
sitions, on which to display his skill, and deceive the jury, if he can. 
But all his antagonist has to do is to come at the facts, and arrange them 
in the most proper manner, and then bring forward the inevitable conclu- 
sions. He has no need of metaphysics, chicanery, double dealing, stud- 
ied obscurities, and ambiguities. All is simple, plain, direct, and con- 
clusive. The Bible is that good case — full of facts, simple, plain, easy 
of access, easy to understand ; that is, excepting what must, in God's 
book, lie beyond our comprehension. What possible need, then, is there 
to study any philosophy in order to understand the Bible, except that 
which we necessarily acquire in the knowledge of language, and add to 
it common sense ? If it is necessary for the student in theology to adopt 
some special philosophy to find out what God has said in his word, it is 
necessary for the same purpose, that the Sabbath School scholar, and 
even the child at home, should have such philosophy to study the Bible; 
else they will begin wrong, and what knowledge they acquire will prove 
to be worse than none. In this case, our Sabbath Schools would be noth- 
ing but schools of error, and the student in divinity must unlearn all he 
had acquired in them. 

An impartial jury further illustrate the point I have in view. They 
are men of plain sense, being generally taken from the common occu- 
pations of life. It is never made a question whether they have studied 
metaphysics. Their special business is to come at facts. This they 
must do, however complicated the case originally may have been, and 
however entangled those lawyers make it by their theories, and hypoth- 
eses, and quibbles, who have not the truth to sustain them. Now since 
the Bible is a collection of facts, it needs men of just such qualifications, 
(no matter how much learning they have.) to explain it ; and to explain 
it on the same principles they apply to understand any other book. This 
is the way in which godly men, of every age, have learned what God 
has said for their good. " Thy word is true from the beginning." Nei- 
ther Abraham, nor Noah, nor Enoch, nor Abel, had or needed any spe- 
cial philosophy to make God's truth appear plainer to them, than it did 
appear ; and Abel, the first saint in Adam's race, is a demonstration that 
God's word is true from the beginning, and that it needs no " philosophy 
and vain deceit," to mystify it, or modify it. 
16 



122 



LETTERS TO THE 



When we read that " The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver 
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," we perceive refer- 
ence is had to the severe tests to which the Bible has been put ; and 
that they have all served to make its sacred truths appear the more glo- 
rious. The three leading, most severe tests to which the word of God 
has been subjected, are, Jewish traditions, Infidelity, and that " Philoso- 
phy and vain deceit," to which Paul refers in Col. 2 ; 8. Indeed this 
philosophy was concerned in the traditions of the Jews, and in the com- 
mandments of men, which they taught for doctrines. The proper ex- 
planation of this philosophy is, that which leads men to determine to be 
wise, in some form, above what is written. This was the determination of 
the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees, when they taught for doctrines the 
commandments of men. This is the determination, of course, among 
all rejecters of the Bible. We may know that this philosophy was 
doing mischief in the time of the apostles, from the direction which Paul 
gave the Colossians : " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosphy 
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the 
world, and not after Christ." This philosophy was not after Christ, but 
it turned the mind from him, after the tradition and rudiments of the 
world, under the pretence of being wise. Surely every generation has 
witnessed such things. The desire to be wise above what is written, 
was concerned in the "endless o-eneaWies," and "old wives' fables," 
which Paul noticed when writing to Timothy. But it seems according 
to Mosheim, that Ammonius, who lived in the second century, did more 
than any of his predecessors since the Christian era, to corrupt the word 
of God by philosophy. Mosheim says in his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 
1, page 139, " The propensity of Ammonius to singularity and paradox, 
led him to maintain, that all the Gentile religions, and even the Christ- 
ian, were to be illustrated and explained by the principles of this univer- 
sal philosophy." This was like the opening of Pandora's box. Such 
philosophy, together with what improvements were occasionally made 
to it, proved sufficient so to wrest the scriptures, as to darken the world; 
and with other agencies, it prepared the way to lock them up from the 
common people. This was done lest some should interpret them in ac- 
cordance with the common use of language, and expose the absurdities 
and heresies, and abominations of the priests, and cardinals, and popes. 
The great essential point, which was gained by the Reformation, in the 
time of Luther and Calvin was, to convince the world, that the Bible 
itself, without the aid of philosophy, is the sufficient rule of faith and 
practice. This is Protestantism. It did seem for a while, that philoso- 
phy and vain deceit, that is, the itching to be wise above what is written, 
that is, man's determination to help Jehovah to make his own word, had 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 123 

received a fatal blow. But it appears that now, May 1850, the relics of 
old philosophical schemes, combined with the modern German and Amer- 
ican philosophy, and the discovery, that " every man has his philosophy 
back of his theology," are engaged in a regular siege against the com- 
mon sense of man on the subject of theology. One of the formidable 
enemies, which these combined forces have to encounter is, the formu- 
las, and creeds, and catechisms of the old Puritans. According to some, 
theological science has improved so much as to alter the meaning of 
words, so that we must not understand our creeds and catechisms as they 
read. Thus we are told, that if a man " holds the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity in manner and form as defined in the Westminster and larger Cate- 
chisms, he holds a doctrine which the prevalent Theology of New Eng- 
land has rejected as unscriptural and absurd." (Those who believe in 
this statement are, I think, Unitarians of course. " Nature will out,") 
The men who use such language concerning the symbols of that glori- 
ous doctrine which we call the Trinity — symbols, which as well define 
it as any other, and which long usage has rendered so venerable, are 
most probably enemies to the doctrine itself. If not, they are accounta- 
ble for using such words, as a very little reflection would teach them, 
are calculated to unsettle the minds of their readers on the doctrine. If 
they had the least belief in the doctrine, would they not be more cau- 
tious ? Flirting at the creeds we sign : look at it ! look at it ! 

Also, I have seen in print the following sentiment, as nearly as I am 
able to describe it. There is a wonderful elasticity in words, which 
corresponds with the knowledge of the reader. This is supposed to be 
necessary in order to have the Bible keep up with the times. When a 
person reads the Bible, who has made no improvement beyond old times, 
the words will contain nothing but the old sense. But when a person 
reads, who has kept up with the " rapid march of mind," the words being 
"elastic," swell up to correspond with the vast improvement of the 
reader, somewhat, I conclude, like the proboscis of an elephant, when 
he is trusting " he can draw up Jordan into his mouth." 

Again. As the true meaning of an orthodox creed will be prominent 
in the words which have hitherto been employed in stating it, I under- 
stand the great desideratum of some vast improvers of the age is, so to 
frame language, that it will retain just as much meaning of the orthodox 
creeds, as suits the taste of the writer, and no more. Miserable, ridicu- 
lous, contemptible ! Who can have patience with such things \ 

We have already examined hypothetical theology, which enables those 
who adopt it to sign an orthodox creed without the least scruple ; but 
reserve a doubt to modify it, and the scriptures, to their liking. If this 
is honesty, what is dishonesty ? 

Another method to be rid of troublesome doctrines is, to call in the aid 



124 LETTERS TO THE 

of learned criticism ; and by a process, which those unacquainted with 
the original languages of the Bible cannot gainsay, but which is inter- 
ested and partial, oblige that sacred book to teach error. 

Where so many are most zealously engaged in making improvements 
in theological science, and in producing a corresponding reform, it may 
be expected, that some will be in advance of others. I understand, that 
one division of reformers fearlessly maintain, that the Bible itself does 
not come up to the times. I detest the sentiment, but admire the honesty. 
If all would be equally frank, we should know much better where we 
are, and what to do. 

With respect to the doctrine, that " every man has his philosophy back 
of his theology,," I would observe, that such a notion encourages as 
many philosophical schemes as there are individuals ; and of course as 
many theological schemes as philosophical. What a Babel this opinion 
is calculated to erect ! Yea, it would prove itself a true descendant of 
Ishmael. " And he will be a wild man ; his hand will be against every 
man, and every man's hand against him." 

In noticing such wild, fanciful schemes on religion, when all have the 
Bible in their hands, it ought to lead us seriously to reflect how unwilling 
mankind are to subject their wisdom to the wisdom of God, and to have 
" every thought brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Will 
a man leave the snow of Lebanon, which cometh from the rock of the 
field ? or shall the cold flowing waters of another place be forsaken ?" 

The most essential truths in the Bible, and such as have been the most 
precious to God's children, are embodied in our creeds. Why then 
should any of those who have signed such creeds, and who are willing 
to be known as prominent theologians, labor to cast these truths into the 
shade ? This seems like forsaking the refreshing waters which come 
from the rock of the field. It seems like growing tired of the old stereo- 
typed light of the sun and moon, and determining to perform our busi- 
ness hereafter with the help of glow-worms and lightning-bugs. And 
after all, what do such ways accomplish ? What great point is gained ? 
"shall any teach God knowledge V If it be the design of fleshly wis- 
dom" to try the words of the Lord anymore, it may be assured that they 
do not need any new test, for they are already " as silver tried in a fur- 
nace of earth, purified seven times." All may be certain, however, 
that any new test to which they think proper to subject the word of God, 
so far from injuring it, will make it appear more pure and glorious. But 
they will need a caution, lest in so doing, they should " kick against the 
pricks:" and their violent dealing should comedown upon their own 
heads. 

" Thy words were found and I did eat them ; and thy word was unto 
me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." This was Jeremiah's experi- 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 125 

ence, and it is the experience of all God's people in their best frames. 
Said the Psalmist, " How sweet are thy words unto my taste ! yea 
sweeter than honey to my mouth !" Every Christian, in his most devo- 
tional frame, not only cheerfully subscribes to such views of the word, 
but he feels them, and feels them deeply. He wants the sentiments of 
the pure word of God, without the least alloy. He is satisfied with 
nothing short of what Paul said he and his brethren taught, as appears 
in 1 Cor. 2 ; 13. " Which things also we speak, not in the words which 
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing 
spiritual things with spiritual." When it is said, " not in the words 
which man's wisdom teacheth," it is evident that these words of man's 
wisdom are not the right preaching of the gospel. Jehovah would not 
speak disparagingly of an institution he has established. No doubt un- 
inspired gospel ministers have their errors, as they are all imperfect. 
But when they make it a paramount object to state, explain and apply 
the word of God, after having studied it carefully, " comparing spiritual 
things with spiritual," they stand in a very different relation to God and 
to their hearers from those who think they must spice their sermons with 
their own wisdom. Those Christians, who are determined to imitate the 
noble Bereans, do, after hearing ministers preach, search the scriptures 
to see " whether these things were so ;" and they want to find a " Thus 
saith the Lord," for all the assertions they hear in the pulpit. Dr. Em- 
mons once said to the writer, to this effect, — " Make it a rule to quote 
largely from the Bible in your sermons ; and remember that they will 
be weighty in proportion to the quantity of scripture, which is perti- 
nently introduced." This direction has become more and more pre- 
cious to me, the longer I have lived. The eagerness of Christians for 
the pure words of the Lord, in the most serious hours of life, was stri- 
kingly exemplified in a pious man of my acquaintance, who died of the 
consumption in the prime of life. Pie had used, and was satisfied with, 
Scott's Commentary, when in health. When he had become very feeble, 
as he desired his wife one day to read to him from the scriptures, he told 
her she need not read Scott's notes as she had often done ; for of late he 
had felt better satisfied to hear the word of God itself, and it seemed to 
him that he wanted to hear no other reading, not even Scott's notes. Ah I 
how long do those ministers expect their hearers will live, who deal out 
their philosophy to them, such as the Bible has nothing to do with ! And 
how long do they expect to live themselves ! 

It is a melancholy token of the decay of piety, that so many unscrip- 
tural speculations are encouraged in the country, as having anything to 
do with sound theology. They are taught in some of the professed 
schools of the prophets, and in the pulpit. The press is groaning be- 



126 LETTERS TO THE 

neath them, and they are spreading over the country in all directions, 
and of course have their readers wherever they are sent. 

Three prominent traits in modern speculations on religion are, ingrat- 
itude, conceitedness, and irreverence. We, miserable, ruined sinners, 
deserving no good at the hand of God, are nevertheless favored with a 
complete revelation from him, which teaches us all we know, on what- 
ever pertains to himself, to ourselves, and to life and godliness. 
How ungrateful, then, in us, to be unwilling to take this revelation 
just as it is given, and determine to judge over it, as though we 
were the appointed umpires over God himself. Is this the way to re- 
quite the Lord, for his infinite condescension and love? Is it not rather 
our part, with thankful hearts to make it our great object to find out 
what God has said, and to be reconciled to it, and not, with the " fleshly 
mind," to teach what God must say ? 

What I intend by conceitedness, as manifested in modern specula- 
tions, is comprehended in vain deceit. I have already noticed, that while 
some have been charged with philosophy and vain deceit, no refutation 
has been attempted, though other topics have been closely examined. 

But when we come to that want of reverence of God which has so 
strongly marked modern speculations, what shall be said ? How many 
expressions have been used to show God's inability to do things, when 
the whole tenor of the argument has been that it would have been desi- 
rable to do so and so, if he could ? How low, has the infinite Jehovah 
been put ; even far beneath man ! How far on the back ground has 
the Holy Spirit been thrown in relation to his official work in renewing 
the hearts of sinners ! None of the opposers of such speculations have 
claimed to be prophets ; but some of them believed many years ago, 
that such treatment of God's word and of the sacred Trinity, would not 
be forgotten ; and such a dearth of revivals of religion followed as was 
expected. To a part of the religious community, however, this dearth 
was wrcexpected ; and though religious periodicals have abounded in the 
supposed causes of the great calamity, yet none of them have to my 
knowledge, assigned what some have very seriously believed to be the 
principal cause : viz. the treatment the Heavenly Dove has extensively 
received. And oh ! have not some friends to truth feared to speak out ! 
The doctrine had been zealously urged, that the official work of the 
Holy Spirit would not be necessary, if man would do what he is able 
to perform ; and that God had already done all he could for the salva- 
tion of sinners, while they remained in impenitence. (In me such pre- 
tended preaching of the gospel would be blasphemy.) But after it ap- 
peared that this plan would not succeed, then we heard strong things said 
to show the dependence of sinners on the Holy Ghost ; while, as I have 



CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 127 

plainly showed on pages 22d and 23d of my printed Letter to the Theo- 
logical Professors at New Haven, and without a word of objection from 
Dr. Goodrich, that the Holy Spirit has no inherent power to convert and 
save men forever in heaven ; but must depend upon the miseries of the 
damned to form a sufficient motive to deter holy beings from apostatiz- 
ing ! This shipwreck made of the work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts 
of men in the nineteenth century, with the Bible in our hands, and 
where there is not a little congratulation at our superior privileges and 
advancement in religious knowledge, is one among many shocking 
things which have been inflicted upon us by means of unscriptural spec- 
ulations on Theology. O, that the tone of conscientious piety were 
raised to the height it was enjoyed at Ephesus, when " Many of them 
also which used curious arts, brought their books together, and burned 
them before all men." God will not wink at such management as mod- 
ern speculations have occasioned. 

While I was about writing some of these last paragraphs, another 
mode still of interpreting the scriptures came to my knowledge, the 
substance of which is, that some of the scriptures were designed to ex- 
press sentiment, and some to express emotion, that it will not answer to at- 
tempt to prove any doctrine by those texts which simply express emotion. 
The design of this rule of interpreting the Bible, was probably to please 
every body ; for every body is to be his own judge as to what texts con- 
tain sentiment, and what were written to express emotion. At least 
every body will be his own judge. So any one can make out of the 
Bible just what his fancy dictates. For example : one may imagine, 
that what David said, Ps. 51 ; 5. " Behold I was shapen in iniquity ; 
and in sin did my mother conceive me," is purely the language of emo- 
tion ; and of course was not designed to prove any doctrine. The same 
may be imagined concerning what is said in Job 14 ; 4. " Who can 
bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? not one." The same may be 
said concerning Job 25 ; 4. " How can he be clean that is born of a 
woman ?" Also, if such a rule of interpreting the scriptures should be 
encouraged, what Paul says in Romans fifth chapter, to show the con- 
nection between the sin of Adam and of his posterity, would very soon 
be set down as the language of emotion, rather than of sentiment. In 
this way, the doctrine of native depravity and original sin, would be 
expunged from the Bible very quick. So it would be of every other 
doctrine not relished by the human heart. Particularly would the doc- 
trine of the eternal punishment of the wicked be brought into danger. 
It is well known, that those who deny this doctrine, try to prove, that 
those passages of scripture, which are brought to sustain it, if under- 
stood in the sense designed by those who produce them, make God 



128 LETTERS &C. 

inexorable and revengeful, speaking from the impulse of passion, and 
the like. Let Universalists, then, be made acquainted with this new 
rule of explaining the Bible, and they will thank the author of it for 
his discovery. It is just what they have been pleading for. How glo- 
rious to have such a scheme put forth by the orthodox ! 

Is it not time that we give up all such chimerical notions about the 
way to understand the Bible, and settle down upon the only rule given 
by inspiration; which is, to compare spiritual things with spiritual? 
What other rule can we believe the noble Bereans adopted, who " search* 
ed the scriptures daily, whether those things were so ?" This simple 
rule has been sufficient for all the pious, in humble stations, since the 
word of God was first given to men. They have had hope through 
"patience and comfort of the scriptures." (Rom. 15; 4.) They have 
not expected to learn every thing at once. When they have found 
things in the scriptures which they could not understand, they have 
chosen rather to wait upon God in prayer, and a diligent study of them 
in the way they prescribe, than to make rules which shall bring them 
down to a human standard. In this way they have often found the 
word of God wonderfully opened to them. Such obedience to God and 
to his word is unspeakably better than all the parade of great learning, 
and wit, and "fleshly .wisdom" combined. 

In Isa. 23 ; 9, it is said, " The Lord of hosts hath purposed to stain 
the pride of all glory ;" and in the second chapter it is repeatedly said, 
" And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." I must believe 
that the fulfillment of such predictions comprehends the renunciation of 
all attempts among theologians to be wise above what is written, or, in 
any respects, to bring the word of God down to the standard of "fleshly 
wisdom." The millennium will never be established — the glory of the 
Lord will never be so revealed as that all flesh shall see it together, 
(Isa. 40 ; 5,) till such renunciation shall be complete ; till all theories 
contrived to study the scriptures which shall conflict in the least with 
" comparing spiritual things with spiritual" shall be torn up, " root and 
branch." The reason is obvious. All such schemes throw us off the 
gospel track ; they " corrupt the word of God" by turning away the 
mind " from the simplicity that is in Christ." They are rebellion 
against "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of 
Christ," and of course they will not stand — They cannot stand FOR 
GOD IS NOT IN THEM. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATII 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 11 



